Thai Intel Investigative Newshttps://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com
Part of Thai Intel Group of BlogsFri, 15 Jan 2016 07:43:32 +0000en
hourly
1 http://wordpress.com/https://assassinationthaksin.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/imageshytr-2.jpeg?w=32Thai Intel Investigative Newshttps://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com
3232Thailand’s Military Corruption: Dirty money from local to global (Up-Dated)https://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/thailands-military-corruption-the-hunt-for-corruption-from-local-to-global-up-date-4/
https://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/thailands-military-corruption-the-hunt-for-corruption-from-local-to-global-up-date-4/#respondSun, 18 Oct 2015 08:39:06 +0000http://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/?p=580The global arms sales industry is gigantic. Those countries, who are heavily involved in buying arms, are usually governed by some form of authoritarian, where the rule of law is weak, and little transparency to anything. And, often, when governments, changes from democratic, to authoritarian, usually, the spending on the military, sky-rocket, such as the case with Thailand and Egypt.

Most military will point to military equipment purchase, being mostly, “Government to Government” as proof that the deal is transparent, however, in every government to government purchase, in making the deal occur, there is always “Middle-Men.”

The Thai military set-up, reform Thailand body, just made a statement, that if Kingdom of Thailand had no corruption, Kingdom of Thailand will be a developed country in 17 years. The problem is, Kingdom of Thailand, is about the military, being above the government & the law, & is addicted, to taking power by coups, meaning “Corrupted by Power.”
But that is not all, the Kingdom of Thailand military, is highly corrupt, on “Money Matters” also (see end of this article on Thai press institution, Isra, investigation, on non transparent military deals inside of Thailand over the past few years).

2

And corruption by Thailand’s military has been going on for a long time

For example, Thailand’s Army Denies Skimming Sihanouk Fund, during the after-math of the Vietnam War, after The Washington Post reported Thai military officers and perhaps businessmen had stolen about $3.5 million from an American aid program for the Cambodian guerrillas. Washington Post quoted The Far Eastern Economic Review that said the Reagan Administration had decided to increase its aid to the Cambodian guerrillas despite the discovery of serious corruption in Thailand’s delivery of the assistance (See Here http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/02/world/thai-army-denies-skimming-sihanouk-fund.html).

And also, in Thailand’s Deep South there is a “Separatist Militant Movement” but given corruption, discrimination and unfair treatment against Muslims by the state, separatism in Thailand’s Deep South was nothing surprising. And Thailand’s Deep South has mostly been mostly, under the administration of Thailand’s military, under some form of emergency law form years now (See http://www.fpps.or.th/news.php?detail=n1149480173.news).

Thailand has also long been hit with a human trafficking problem. And here, local press reports military Lieutenant General Manus Kongpan is the most senior official to be charged to date in the anti human trafficking operation. Police say they have made 51 arrests. Manus was in police custody on Wednesday after turning himself in. He was suspended on Monday when police ordered his arrest. “He says he has no involvement, which is a denial (of charges),” Thai national police chief Somyot Poompanmuang told reporters on Wednesday. Manus is the only soldier who has been charged with offences related to human trafficking, said deputy police chief Aek Angsananont. Given the power of Thailand’s military, that is the dominant power in Thailand, what is the likelihood that only one soldier is involved in Thailand’s vast human trafficking problem (See http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/03/us-thailand-trafficking-arrest-idUSKBN0OJ14G20150603)?

While the Vietnam War and War with the Separatist Militant Movement & Human Trafficking, are corruptions, involving decades old questions, however, also, in Thailand’s modern history, with ample evidence of corruption in military, no corruption case, has ever, been bought on Thailand’s military.

For example, Transparency International rates the Sorayuth military junta government around 2006 to 2007, less transparent than Thaksin’s government & in fact, Transparency International ranked Thaksin government as the most transparent in Thailand’s history, since the ranking.

Thailand military, under the military junta of Sorrayuth, bought US$ billions in arms from the highly corrupt, Ukraine (armored carriers) arms industry & Sweden (planes) arms industry & a host of equipment Thailand’s military bought, such as balloon surveillance, to bomb detectors, does not work, and many arms purchase, faced years of delays in delivery. In fact, the corruption perception of Thailand’s military, meaning how non transparent perception of Thailand’s military, sky-rocketed after 2006 coup, where the military that staged the 2006 coup, with the rationale, that the coup was to stop Thaksin Shinawatra’s corruption (See http://knoema.com/QOGISD2015/quality-of-government-institute-standard-dataset-2015?tsId=1365740).

And corruption, under Thailand’s current “Dictator” Prayuth junta, is well known, as the Diplomat reports, headlined “Thai Junta Beset By Corruption Scandals” and said “The May 2, 2014 military coup in Thailand was justified on the need to fight corruption. Recent events prove that’s a sham” (See http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/).

Now the Prayuth junta wants to spend about US$1 billion, to buy submarines from China. Transparency international rated China at the highest ranking of corruption & Kingdom of Thailand, the next, lower ranking level. Kingdom of Thailand’s economy is also stagnating, and many wonder, why is Thailand military planning a big ticketed purchase item. But globally, China is known as an arms seller, that “Transparency is rarely part of China’s deal” both opening the door for corruption and decreasing the likelihood that the system procured will be the best fit for the needs of the country (See http://latinamericagoesglobal.org/2015/05/should-u-s-be-worried-about-chinese-arms-sales-in-the-region/).

3

Anti-Corruption as a Political Tool

But as has been with Thailand for a long time, with a coup or attempted coup every 3 years, in Thailand modern history, after every military coup, resulting junta, raise corruption issue to legitimize coup, meaning, there have always been a war on the civilian government, that the coup ousted, for corruption. Basically, what the Thaksin and Yingluck are going through, is nothing new.

And structurally, Thailand is not ready to cope with corruption, of any kind, with an anti-corruption effort, always “Politicized” to go after the enemy of the Bangkok establishment and military.

For example, again, Transparency International found Thaksin’s government (Thaksin was ousted by the Sorrayuth 2006 coup) more transparent than the 2006 coup Sorrayuth coup government & also the Democratic Party, Abhisit government which, mostly represents Bangkok’s middle-class. However, Thailand’s official anti corruption agency, called “Politicized” & ranked at the bottom in Asia, by Political & Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), have rush going after Thaksin (Ousted by Sorrayuth 2006 coup) and his sister Yingluck (Ousted by Prayuth 2014 coup) with corruption charges.

As many have noted, the combination between Thailand’s official anti-corruption agency, going single-mindedly after Thaksin and Yingluck, and leaving corruption by others, un-scrutinized, and furthermore, apart from not scrutinizing corruption by other, the official unit has a long track record of clearing corruption by other, have left many Thai specialist and expert to conclude what PERC says. Furthermore, apart from not scrutinizing corruption by other, the official agency has a long track record of clearing other of corruption. Many Thai specialist have also noted, all of Thailand’s private or public anti corruption organizations/units, are “Politicized” & works for elite.

And again, for examples of corruption, Thailand military, under the military junta of Sorrayuth, bought US$ billions in arms from the highly corrupt Ukraine (armored carriers) arms industry & Sweden (planes) arms industry & a host of equipment Thailand’s military bought, such as balloon surveillance, to bomb detectors, does not work, and many arms purchase, faced years of delays in delivery. And in one case, here, on the fake bomb detector, Thailand’s official anti-corruption agency says investigating into Thailand’s military bomb detector for corruption is difficult, as the case is deep and mysterious (See in Thai language http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1444995073).

And local Thai press, has long did investigative report on the Swedish fighter jet, Gripen, sales to Thailand. Local press has long compares Thailand’s military purchase of the Swedish jet fighter, as being more expensive than the purchase price, 5 other countries have paid for the fighter jets. And again, nothing but silence, from Thailand’s official anti-corruption agency (See in Thai language http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1279160046).

Secondly, please consider, the military organisational structure, by design, tolerates corruption. Even though it is efficient in term of combat and warfare, its prices are paid for in term of transparency and accountability. The military gets extra shields from positive public perception allowing corruption to be accommodated rather than be challenged and accountability more hard-earning. In conclusion, the military did not fight against corruption at all, despite the fact that it is always alleged so in many coup d’état (Chambers, 2013b). Moreover, anti-corruption coup never happens in Thailand. Policy implications of these findings are quite repulsive. Basically, the rationale of eliminating corruption by staging military coup is no longer valid (See http://extranet.isnie.org/uploads/isnie2014/thavornyutikarn.pdf).

Fourth, please consider the evaporation away of the rule of law and justic system. These combination, between Thailand’s anti-corruption agency being politicized and Thailand’s “Dictator” Prayuth power, going after Yingluck, have resulted, in an incredible little respect to the “Rule of Law” & “Justice System” moves, in that Thailand’s military Dictator, Prayuth, has been going after Yingluck Shinawatra for “Failing to Stop” corruption case, in her agriculture subsidy scheme, to the point of by “Passing the Courts and Using Administrative Order” to go after her.

A politician, demonstrated the level of out-raged in some circles in Thailand. Chatuporn, a politician, just asked the Dictator, Prayuth, if he is not interested in going after other corruption case and raised the case of Thailand’s failed financial firm asset sales and police station building scam. Both case involved the Democrat Party, where Abhisit is a leader of the party. Both case involves US$ billions in damages. Abhisit’s chief of security is Suthep, who went on to lead the Suthep Movement (called by Forbes Magazine Neo Fascist) that destabilized Thailand & called for a coup (Suthep called on Prayuth to stage a coup, to which latter Prayuth staged the 2014 coup) After the coup, Suthep said he and Thailand’s Dictator, Prayuth, had been working together & he spend about US$50 million to get rid of Yingluck. Suthep is now a staunch supporter of Prayuth (See in Thai language http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1445168843).

The following is a list of Non-Transparent purchase by Thailand’s military, as exposed by the Thai press institution Isra. A note is that the Kingdom of Thailand’s military is independent from every civilian government & is out of government control. Also corruption statistics by PwC Consulting, from 2014 survey says Thais are champion of highest corruption by personnel w/i organizations at 89%, average Asia-Pacific 61%, global 56% (See in Thai language http://www.posttoday.com/biz/gov/395258).

]]>https://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/thailands-military-corruption-the-hunt-for-corruption-from-local-to-global-up-date-4/feed/0corruptionthaiintelligentnewsFirst Asian Investigative Journalism Meet Launch! “Chinese Big Brother is Watching”https://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/first-asian-investigative-jourmnalism-meet-launch-chinese-big-brother-is-watching-and-exporting-its-methods/
https://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/first-asian-investigative-jourmnalism-meet-launch-chinese-big-brother-is-watching-and-exporting-its-methods/#respondMon, 24 Nov 2014 02:19:49 +0000http://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/?p=536If u look at Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom graphic, on things stands out about the globe, and that is, “Asia is Mostly Black” meaning, little press freedom. Here in Thailand, most of the local press, in any media and any language, continues to boot licking Thailand’s Dictator and his junta.

The following is from IJAsia14:

Newsbreak: We’ve just launched the conference page for Uncovering Asia. For complete details on the region’s groundbreaking investigative journalism conference, check out the IJAsia14 site.

Uncovering Asia is hosted by the Global Investigative Journalism Network, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, with additional support from the Open Society Foundations and Adessium Foundation. Co-sponsors include the Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma, Ford Foundation, Free Press Unlimited, Google, Hong Kong University Journalism and Media Studies Centre, and Waseda University Journalism School.PCIJ logo 2
Mark your calendars! Uncovering Asia: The First Asian Investigative Journalism Conference is now happening. Join us in Manila on November 22-24 for this breakthrough event, bringing together top investigative reporters, data journalists, and media law and security experts from across Asia and around the world. Meet award-winning journalists and experts on data analysis and visualization, business investigations, corruption, crime, and cross-border collaboration.

Workshops include:

Advanced online search techniques by Internet sleuth Paul Myers of the BBC.
Tracking business across borders with Investigative Dashboard by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
Uncovering hidden assets with the Offshore Leaks Database of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
Advanced Google Tools, including searches, mapping, and public data with the Google for Media Team.

Speakers include many of the world’s top trainers in investigative and data journalism. Among them:

Educators — Uncovering Asia will feature a special workshop on teaching investigative journalism. Among the schools which will be represented at the conference: the Ateneo de Manila University’s Asian Center for Journalism (Philippines), Asian College of Journalism (India), Chung-Ang University’s School of Journalism & Mass Communication (Korea), Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (U.S.), Danish School of Media and Journalism (Denmark), Hong Kong University Journalism and Media Studies Centre (Hong Kong), and Waseda University’s Journalism School (Japan).

Special Events — The conference will mark two other important occasions: a special reception honoring the KAS 225th anniversary of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, one of the world’s pioneering nonprofit media centers; and the UN-designated International Day to End Impunity on November 23. GIJN square
Uncovering Asia is hosted by the Global Investigative Journalism Network, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, with additional support from the Open Society Foundations and Adessium Foundation. Co-sponsors include the Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma, Ford Foundation, Free Press Unlimited, Google, Hong Kong University Journalism and Media Studies Centre, and Waseda University Journalism School.PCIJ logo 2

Sponsorships: Help us bring journalists from across Asia to the conference and you can be a co-sponsor of Asia’s first investigative reporting conference. Media organizations sending 5 people or contributing US$5,000 will become a co-sponsor, with their name and logo displayed on the conference program and website. Contact us at hello@gijn.org.
Stay in Touch: More to come soon on our venue, program, partners, registration, and special events. Want to stay in touch on the latest developments? Subscribe to GIJN’s newsletter — Global Network News, and to our Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ feeds.

The following is from Reporters Without Borders:

Asia-Pacific

CHINESE BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING, AND EXPORTING ITS METHODS

In a speech shortly after his appointment as Communist Party general secretary in November 2012, Xi Jinping addressed journalists directly: “Friends from the press, China needs to learn more about the world, and the world also needs to learn more about China. I hope you will continue to make more efforts and contributions to deepening the mutual understanding between China and the countries of the world.”
Woe to any journalist who thought he was saying “Describe China’s stark realities” when what he really meant was “Follow the Party’s propaganda to the letter!” Since the speech, the authorities have arrested more journalists and bloggers, cracked down harder on cyber-dissidents, reinforced online content control and censorship and stepped up restrictions on the foreign media.

Embarrassing officials or exposing corruption means risking public condemnation. Luo Changping, a journalist who was forced to leave Caijing magazine in November, Liu Hu, a New Express reporter who was arrested for disseminating “false information”, and the New York Times newspaper are among the recent examples of journalists and news media that have been punished for investigative reporting. Human rights activists and dissident bloggers such as Xu Zhiyong and Yang Maodong (also known as Guo Feixiong), who were jailed on trumped-up charges are among those who paid a high price in the past year.

The daily “directives” to the traditional media from the Department of Propaganda, the constant online censorship, the growing number of arbitrary arrests and the detention of the largest number of journalists and netizens in the world (including 2010 Nobel peace laureate Liu Xiaobo) have made China a model of censorship and repression. Adoption of the model is unfortunately spreading in the region.

Vietnam has stepped by information control to the point of being close to catching up with its Chinese big brother. Independent news providers are subject to enhanced Internet surveillance, draconian directives, waves of arrests and sham trials. Vietnam continues to be the world’s second largest prison for bloggers and netizens. Of the 34 bloggers currently detained, 25 were arrested since Nguyen Phu Trong became the party’s general secretary in January 2011.
The party took censorship to a new level in September 2013 when it issued Decree 72 banning the use of blogs and social networks to share information about news developments. It shows that the party is waging an all-out offensive against the new-generation Internet, which it sees as a dangerous counterweight to the domesticated traditional media.

ASIAN AND PACIFIC DEMOCRACIES

The past year showed that certain governments in the Asia-Pacific region, even democratic ones, can be extremely sensitive to criticism. This was evident from the many judicial proceedings, often resulting in disproportionate sentences, that were initiated against journalists under pressure from government agencies or officials.
The Thai government uses lèse-majesté charges as an effective weapon for intimidating or silencing those who are disrespectful. The suspended jail sentence imposed on Chiranuch Premchaiporn (also known as Jiew), the editor of the online newspaper Prachatai, for “comments critical of the monarchy” and the 11-year-jail sentence given to Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, editor of the Voice of Thaksin bimonthly, were noteworthy examples. These sentences had a deterrent effect on the entire Thai media.

In South Korea, independent journalists Kim Ou-joon and Choo Chin-woo were accused of broadcasting “false information” and “defamatory content” about President Park Geun-hye’s brother and father in their satirical podcast “Naneun Ggomsuda.” In Tonga and Papua New Guinea, four journalists were fined or sanctioned for “criticizing” their respective prime ministers.

The Asian democracies also have “forbidden areas” where news is subject to blackouts or censorship. In northern India’s Kashmir region and in Indonesia’s West Papua province, the work of journalists is handicapped by draconian news control policies. In Kashmir, the authorities impose curfews and often block the Internet and mobile phone networks.
Surveillance and confidentiality of sources

In Australia, the lack of adequate legislative protection for the confidentiality of journalists’ sources continues to expose them to the threat of imprisonment for contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources. No fewer than seven requests for disclosure of sources were submitted to the courts in 2013 alone. In New Zealand, the interception of reporter Jon Stephenson’s metadata by the military, which thought his articles were overly critical, and the release of journalist Andrea Vance’s phone records to a leak investigation is indicative of growing government mistrust of the media and their watchdog role.

Chinese threat

China’s growing economic weight is allowing it to extend its influence over the media in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, which had been largely spared political censorship until recently. Media independence is now in jeopardy in these three territories, which are either “special administrative regions” or claimed by Beijing. The Chinese Communist Party’s growing subjugation of the Hong Kong executive and its pressure on the Hong Kong media through its “Liaison Office” is increasingly compromising media pluralism there. It has also been threatened in Taiwan by the pro-Beijing Want Want group’s acquisition of the China Times.

Censorship of Fukushima

Arrests, home searches, interrogation by the domestic intelligence agency and threats of judicial proceedings – who would have thought that covering the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster would have involved so many risks for Japan’s freelance journalists? The discrimination against freelance and foreign reporters resulting from Japan’s unique system of Kisha clubs, whose members are the only journalists to be granted government accreditation, has increased since Fukushima.

Often barred from press conferences given by the government and TEPCO (the Fukushima nuclear plant’s owner), denied access to the information available to the mainstream media (which censor themselves), freelancers have their hands tied in their fight to cover Japan’s nuclear industrial complex, known as the “nuclear village.” Now that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government has tightened the legislation on “state secrets,” their fight will get even more dangerous.

VIOLENCE AND IMPUNITY IN INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT

For the second year running, the Indian sub-continent is the Asian region with the biggest rise in violence for journalists. The most disturbing development is the increasingly targeted nature of the violence. In Nepal, Maoist party activists were more aggressive towards journalists who criticize their leaders, especially in the run-up to constituent assembly elections in November.

A record number of eight journalists and one media worker were killed in India in 2013. Half of these deaths were premeditated reprisals. This was twice the 2012 death toll and more than the death toll in Pakistan, long the world’s deadliest country for media personnel. Criminal organizations, security forces, demonstrators and armed groups all pose a threat to India’s journalists. The violence and the resulting self-censorship is encouraged by the lack of effective investigations by local authorities, who are often quick to abandon them, and inaction on the part of the federal authorities.
It was a grim year for freedom of information in Bangladesh as well. Independent bloggers, especially those covering the trials of former political leaders accused of war crimes during the 1971 independence war, have been the targets of constant physical attacks since February. One, Ahmed Rajib Haider, was hacked to death. Another, Asif Mohiuddin, was stabbed by Islamist activists who accused him of blasphemy and insulting the Prophet. Journalists were targeted by both police and rioting protesters during a series of demonstrations from May to October to demand a blasphemy law. The February 2012 murders of journalists Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi are still unpunished.

The same lack of interest in rendering justice is to be found in Pakistan, where the government seems powerless against not only the Taliban, Jihadis and other armed groups but also the military apparatus, which international observers describe as a “state within the state.” Seven journalists were murdered in connection with their work in 2013. Four of them – Mohammad Iqbal of News Network International, Saifur Rehman and Imran Shaikh of Samaa News and Mehmood Ahmed Afridi – were killed in Balochistan, Pakistan’s deadliest province.

While armed groups pose the biggest threat to Pakistani journalists, the intelligence agencies, especially Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), continue to represent a danger. Journalists who dare to speak out accuse the military of spying on media personnel, abducting them, torturing them and even murdering them.

Uthayan: for some media, the war is far from over

Northern Sri Lanka’s Tamil-language daily Uthayan was the target of two violent attacks within the space of 10 days in April. Two of its employees were nearly killed, its printing press was set on fire and its premises were badly damaged. These raids could not however be blamed on the civil war between the Tamil Tigers and the regular army because that officially ended in May 2009.

Founded in 1985, Uthayan was the only Tamil newspaper not to suspend publishing at any time during the civil war. Today it is read by nearly 100,000 Tamils, or 20 per cent of the population of the Jaffna Peninsula. It does hesitate to criticize the ruling Rajapaksa family’s authoritarian methods and continues to pay a high price for not kowtowing to either the military or the government. Six of its employees have been killed in connection with their work. In December 2013, Uthayan received the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Prize.

BURMA’S DEMOCRATIC SPRING STARTS TO FALTER

Are Burma’s reforms and democratization beginning to run out of steam? More and more international human rights NGOs are beginning to worry, and rightly so. The widespread euphoria generated by the successive amnesties of political prisoners in October 2011 and January 2012 has evaporated. The government is struggling to resolve sectarian and ethnic conflicts. With more freedom to speak out, civil society is complaining about the authorities.
The launch of privately-owned daily newspapers was one of the big novelties of 2013. The government announced in March that it had given permission for eight dailies and was studying permit requests for at least six other publications including some operated by former “exile media” that have returned to Burma and set up shop in Rangoon. A score of these new newspapers are already being sold on the streets of the main cities. The transformation of the media landscape also includes the creation of several online media and radio stations.

The process has been accelerated by the assistance provided by international organizations that promote and defend the media. These initiatives have included training in media technology and professional ethics. They have also benefited Burma’s minorities, some of which now have local media in their own language.

The legislative framework has evolved more slowly. The government and parliament kept the promises made in 2012 to end prior censorship and grant more freedom to the media and media organizations. But the promise to draft media legislation that complies with international standards has not been kept. Without any consultation, the government submitted a draft media law to the lower house of the parliament on 4 March that would impose clearly unacceptable restrictions on media freedom. The printing and publications law and the latest draft of a proposed broadcast media law also reveal government ambivalence about real respect for fundamental rights.

The reform process is nonetheless being watched with great interest elsewhere, especially in neighbouring countries such as Laos, where the situation of freedom of information has stagnated alarmingly, in Cambodia, in Singapore, where the authorities are on edge, and in Vietnam, still in the grip of authoritarian single-party rule. The governments and population of these countries are following the development of a new regional model of governance in Burma, a model that is still far from proving itself. Will Burma become Southeast Asia’s benchmark for positive change in freedom of information? This remains to be seen.

In BBC’s television latest report on Thailand, the report started out with a video of news and radio stations in Thailand’s Issan region, broadcasting news about how the people of Bangkok, thinks the people in the country side are stupid and do not deserve to vote. That type of talk, is exactly what Twenty-seven-year old Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, heiress to a $2.6 billion Beer Singha family fortune says.

Chitpas says it openly, on stage in front of 1,000s of Bangkokians, that, quote: “The poor people do not understand democracy……One man one vote does not work.”

The problem for Chitpas, is that Beer Singh is trying to go mainstream, and loose its premium image. In fact, just months ago, Beer Singh and Khao Sod, a newspaper targeted to the grass-roots, particularly grass-roots in Issan, just launched a joint marketing effort. Apart from that Beer Singha, has a global presence, and has hired Publicist, the globe’s best PR firm, to help it go mainstream, away from the premium segment.

Chitpas, most expert say, is hurting Beer Singha, with her anti democracy and violent moves.

(Up-Dated) Chitpas, joinning Suthep protest, was successful in rendering the Yingluck government, not able to function. Thsiland’s army chief, thus took power through a coup, after attempt to broker a deal failed. Suthem then said Prayuth and him, have been plotting the fall of Yingluck together. Yingluck much disappeared from the scene, but recently, lead the staunch far right Chula University, student graduation ceremony. Many of Chula students were out-raged and disagreed with Chitpas selection.

(Up-Dated) Chitpas, reports several news, made an offer, anyone who does not love Thai Royalism, can go to her and ask for money, to leave Thailand. News report some made a counter offer, for Chitpas, to start a fund, available for Thais who wants to leave Thailand, without having to go ask her, but just go an withdraw money from the fund. No answer from Chitpas.

1)Chipas Brings Bulldozer to Break into Government House

Among the 150,000 protesters that took to the streets in Bangkok over the past weeks to oust the Yingluck led government, 27 year old Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, again, heiress to a $2.6 billion Beer Sing family fortune, stood out. Chitpas family owns Boon Rawd Brewery, the country’s second largest brewery. The rich heiress is member of the Democrat Party and a staunch royalist not unknown as a campaigner.

One of that campaign, in the past, is in calling for police to get tough on Lese Majeste, or offending Thai Royalty, a crime in Thailand, that has out-raged global human rights activist and units, such as the UNHRC.

On December 2, when the protests in front of Government House in Bangkok turned violent, she climbed on a bulldozer amid tear gas grenade showers and rubber bullet fire.

That bulldozer, with Chitpas, in the driver room, went and tore down a concrete barricade, protecting the Government House, from protest entering it. That night, as the bulldozer broke the barrier, fire and explosion, rocked the area throughout the night.

“Someone help us, we are being shot….bullets are flying all around us,” radio a police, behind the broken barrier, screaming on radio, for help.

She also volunteered as a medic to help injured people. Showing that she is not just a celebrity in Thailand’s elite circles, but can also handle tear gas and rubber bullets, as well as ride on a bulldozer that broke down police barricade, she has become a poster child for a Thai elite campaigning to freeze democracy.

That action caused the Yingluck government to issue a warning that, quote: “Some family member of Thailand’s high society should be careful because they are verging on treason activity.”

One foreign press reports:

“But when Ms Chitpas Bhirombhakdi is not on stage cheerleading for a self-styled “people’s revolution”, she is quietly preparing a bid for Parliament. It is a contradiction that highlights the dilemma facing Thailand’s oldest – but by no means most popular – political party, the Democrats, whose lawmakers recently resigned en masse from Parliament to join opposition street protests. The party must soon decide whether to take part in, or boycott, a general election that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has called for Feb 2 – a decision that could determine the fate of the country’s fragile democracy.”

Again, Chitpas family’s Boon Rawd Brewery, is Thailand’s second largest brewery that makes Singha and Leo beer, among other drinks. The rich heiress is member of the Democrat Party and a staunch royalist not unknown as a campaigner. Word is, the family got started, by asking a member of Thai Royalty, to finance the family beer making aspirations, thus once the funds were granted, solidifying the family royalty, to the elite Royalism institution.

But Chitpas, known as a campaigner, has seen her campaign gone sour before.

2)WHAT’s Thailand’s 365 days of lust?

A few years back, Chitpas decided to help her family Beer Empire with some promotion, with a very sexy beer calendar. That whole event causes a major controversy.

To accept responsibility for distributing the calendars inside the August compound of the Government House, Chitpas resigned as a political appointee at the PM’s secretariat office. In her resignation letter, the heiress explained that she did not intend to distribute them. “I brought along the calendars because some friends want to have them,” she said, as quoted by The Nation.

“Many reporters saw the calendars and wanted them. So, I gave them to everyone. I admit that I did not think that this would turn out to be a big deal. This happened because of my recklessness.” “I’m upset that the incident affected not only my family and me but also many senior people whom I respect. I myself will take full responsibility for this by resigning from position in the PM’s secretariat.”

A press reports:

It is a controversial 2010 calendar featuring nude models whose bodies are painted to cover their assets. The titillating calendar was produced to promote Leo beer, a low-end alcoholic beverage manufactured by Singha Corporation (owner of iconic Thai beer, Singha).

The Leo calendar has attracted uproar from the Thai Public Health Ministry, Alcohol Beverage and Tobacco Consumption Control Committee, the Friends of Women Foundation and feminists. It also led to the resignation of a Singha heiress.

So, what so controversial about a beer calendar featuring photographs of women, whose modesty is virtually covered up by paint? Well, Section 32 of Thailand’s Alcohol Beverage Control Act 2008 prohibits the advertising of alcohol drinks, their brands and trademarks in a way that encourages consumption, directly or indirectly.

Deputy Public Health Minister Manit Nopamornbodee, as reported by Bangkok Post on Thursday, criticised claims by the brewer and the calendar publisher that the calendar was for sale, not for distribution. “It is against the law whether it is for sale or for distribution. The calendar carries a logo of the alcohol product and people understand that message,” he roared.

Outside the Prime Minister’s office in Bangkok on Thursday, the Friends of Women Foundation protested against the distribution of the calendar it labeled “Nude Calendar”, “Sin Calendar” and “Lust Calendar”. Its manager Chadet Chaowilai said many brewers exploited women as sex objects for the sake of their business.

“Such negative tendencies have contributed to the problem of sexual violence against women,” he said, adding that “companies, including Singha, should give up their old marketing strategies and move towards more creative ways to promote their products and adopt a sense of corporate social responsibility”.

Yesterday, the Bangkok Post editorialised: “The argument by the calendar publisher, former supermodel Methinee ‘Lukked’ Kingpayom, that the calendar was made for sale, not for free distribution, is for fools. “The use of girly calendars as a promotional tool for alcoholic beverages has been around long enough that people understand exactly what is going on without any need for spurious explanations.”

The hot, hot, hot Leo calendar brought heat to the Bhirombhakdi family that controls Singha Corporation when a Singha heiress brought them to work – the Government House (Thai Prime Minister’s office). On Wednesday, Chitpas Bhirom-bhakdi, a 23-year-old daughter of the executive vice-president of Singha Corporation, took out two boxes of calendars from the trunk of her BMW and distributed them at the Government House in Bangkok.

Government House officials (including deputy government spokesmen Phumin Leetheerapra-sert and Supachai Jaisamut), MPs, police and journalists (covering the Government House beat) lined up to accept Chitpas’ generosity and within a few minutes, about 200 copies were snapped up.

The next day, to accept responsibility for distributing the calendars inside the August compound of the Government House, Chitpas resigned as a political appointee at the PM’s secretariat office.

In her resignation letter, the heiress explained that she did not intend to distribute them. “I brought along the calendars because some friends want to have them,” she said, as quoted by The Nation.

“Many reporters saw the calendars and wanted them. So, I gave them to everyone. I admit that I did not think that this would turn out to be a big deal. This happened because of my recklessness.” “I’m upset that the incident affected not only my family and me but also many senior people whom I respect. I myself will take full responsibility for this by resigning from position in the PM’s secretariat.”

Chitpas said she would take the incident as a lesson, and hoped that in the future, she would be given another opportunity in politics. Democrat MP for Songkhla Sirichok Sopha, a personal secretary to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, according to the Bangkok Post, said “the stir over the nude calendar had affected the reputation of the government as it was distributed at the Government House”.

He, however, denied the Demo-crat-led coalition government pressured Chitpas to resign, saying she made her own decision. Probably the only good thing coming out from Chitpas’ generosity is the recipients have something to look forward to when they peek at the Leo calendar.

3)AFP Interview Chitpas:

There is a great deal of information about Chitpas, in the numerous High So oriented magazines in Thailand. Many went to look at her home and fashion style, including countless mindless interview along the “Material Girl” direction. But Chitpas, is long known to like to be involved in politics. Pictures of her, coming out of the current Fascist Suthep protest gathering, is of herself as one of the leader of the movement. Often the picture of Chitpas and Suthep, together, is that of a father and daughter.

AFP Reports:

BANGKOK: She is a poster child for a Thai elite campaigning to freeze democracy. But when Chitpas Bhirombhakdi is not on stage cheerleading for a self-styled “people’s revolution”, she is quietly preparing a bid for parliament.

It is a contradiction that highlights the dilemma facing Thailand’s oldest – but by no means most popular – political party, the Democrats, whose lawmakers recently resigned en masse from parliament to join opposition street protests.

The party must soon decide whether to take part in, or boycott, a general election that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has called for Feb 2 – a decision that could determine the fate of the country’s fragile democracy.

“We don’t know whether there’s going to be a general election or not but as a politician I have to be prepared for it,” Chitpas said.

The Democrat-backed street protest movement has rejected the election, raising concerns that the party may decide to boycott the polls at a key two-day meeting which started yesterday.

Known as the “Singha heiress”, Chitpas’ family is one of the richest in Thailand.

Its Boon Rawd Brewery makes Singha beer, an official sponsor of English Premier League giants Manchester United.

A former Democrat Party spokesman who ran unsuccessfully for a seat in parliament two years ago, the British-educated 27-year-old says her childhood dream is to become prime minister.

Yet each night she takes to the stage to support a movement seeking to overthrow a government which won a landslide election in 2011, and to install an unelected “people’s council” in its place.

The glamorous socialite – who was picked by protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban to play a leading role in the street movement – has led marches to besiege state buildings in Bangkok.

She has tended to wounded demonstrators, addressed the international media from the rally stage in near-flawless English and was even spotted riding in a bulldozer brought out to dismantle police barricades.

But she insists the Democrats are not turning their back on elections.

“We’re not taking away democracy.

“We just need some time to reform the country before we can move on to democracy,” she said, explaining that problems such as corruption and vote-buying must be tackled before free and fair elections can be held.

The problem, she added, is that many Thais lack a “true understanding of democracy … especially in the rural areas”.

The Democrats enjoy widespread support among Thailand’s Bangkok-based elite and middle class.

But they have not won an elected majority in about two decades, and critics argue that the only “reforms” they are interested in are those which will end their losing streak.

They face a formidable opponent in Yingluck’s brother, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, whose overthrow by royalist generals in a coup seven years ago ushered in years of political turmoil and periodic street violence.

The Democrats last took power in 2008 by parliamentary vote after a court stripped Thaksin’s allies of power, angering his “Red Shirt” supporters who launched mass street protests three years ago that ended in a military crackdown that left dozens dead.

Thaksin, who now lives in self-exile in Dubai, is adored by many outside Bangkok for his populist policies that helped to transform the country’s impoverished northern hinterlands.

But the billionaire tycoon-turned-politician is reviled by the elite, Bangkok’s middle class and southerners, who see him as corrupt and a threat to the monarchy.

Pro-Thaksin parties have won every election since 2001, most recently with a landslide victory under Yingluck two years ago.

“In the past, before all of this happened, very little awareness was made about politics.

“In the parliament, when the bills are being passed and it’s being shown live on TV, people don’t watch it.”

If the Democrats do choose to boycott the February elections, it will likely prolong the crisis.

“Their agenda is to get rid of Thaksin and to set up a regime of their own by bypassing the democratic process,” said Pavin Cha­chaval­pongpun, an associate professor at the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at Japan’s Kyoto University.

But without their participation in elections, Thailand’s political system would face a crisis of legitimacy, he said.

Chitpas said her hope for the future is to see a government last for a full four-year term – a rarity in a country where the military and courts have a history of intervening to remove elected governments.

Even if it is a pro-Thaksin government?

“Well that’s the problem,” she replied. “That’s why we have to fix it before we can move forward.”

4)Singha appoints Publicis to widen appeal of Thai beer

The Marketing Website Reports:

Thai beer brand Singha has appointed Publicis as its first international agency ahead of a major brand-positioning drive and global expansion.

Singha is to launch an international campaign that will run in countries including the UK, US, Australia and Japan. Publicis Groupe was a French multinational advertising and public relations company, headquartered in Paris, France. Up to July 2013, it was one of the “Big Four” agency companies (alongside WPP, Interpublic and Omnicom). Publicis Groupe S.A. is presided by Maurice Lévy, and its agencies provide digital and traditional advertising, media services and marketing services (SAMS) to national and multinational clients. On 28 July 2013, it was announced that Publicis Groupe and Omnicom Group would merge to form Publicis Omnicom Group.

The initial focus of the work will be on the themes of ‘traveller experience’ and the ‘travelling spirit’. The brand is aiming to shift into the mainstream market, rather than competing with niche beer brands. Publicis has been briefed to position Singha, which has been available in the UK since 1976, as a more premium product compared with other Asian beers such as Cobra and Tiger. Singha beer is sold in some supermarkets, including Tesco and Waitrose, in 650ml bottles, but has a stronger presence in the on-trade in bars and restaurants.

The brand is now in advanced talks with retailers about widening its distribution, with plans to roll out its single-serve 330ml bottles in stores for the first time.

It should be noted here, that about 30 to 40 countries, have issued warning about traveling to Thailand, because of the Chitpas involved protesting. Has Publicist campaign to link Singh Beer to travel, just been totally destroy by Chitpas?

Conclusion:

There has been a great deal of writings about how a new middle-class is emerging in Thailand, from the used to be poor Thai segment. And what is written about the current crisis in Thailand, at times, is about how this new middle class, is not accepted by the Bangkok middle-class and the high society.

However, to a businessman what can be done, where clearly, this new rising middle class is an important consumer segment.

Beer Singha joint effort with Khao Sod newspaper is perhaps part of the global renowned Publcist PR, to help Singha beer go mainstream.

But what can a company do, with a person such as Chitpas, part of the ownership of the firm, alienates massive numbers of consumer away? Those TV and Radio stations, BBC talks about, mentioning Chitpas, reaching, perhaps, 10s to 1,000s Thais across the country, insulting them as stupid, is the worse type of PR, any company can be faced with.

Will beer Singha succeed in going mainstream? The fact is, the beer market is very competitive, here in Thailand and globally. Already, in Singapore, a major market for Singha beer, the newspaper there, like the Straits Times, is splashing the report on Chitpas, as a major front page story. Chitpas message, reaching the globe, is of a spoiled stupid little rich girl, who is out of control, and beer Singha image is going down with her.

The Thai political mess has heated to the boiling point again, with Abhisit‘s Dems leading about 20,000 to 25,000 protesters at the Democracy Moniment, where years earlier, Abhisit’s dems went killing many protesters there. Abhisit’s Dems of course, serves the anti Democracy Thai elite establishment. The Abhisit’s Dems gathering at the Democracy Monument, in historical terms, is an insult to all those that have been killed by the elite establishment in the past, in their struggle to bring Democracy to Thailand. At the Abhisit’s Dems protest, the latest is that a number of police were attacked and hospitalized.

I a few days, the Thai Red Shirts are gathering at the National Stadium. Last time that happened, the seats was a maximum capacity, and the sports field below was also filed to maximum capacity. Outside the stadium, was also packed. No numbers were given, but some estimate the gathering drew about 80,000 to 120,000 Thai Red Shirts.

(Up-Dated) A coup had occurred, by Prayuth. The coup came after a combination of Suthep, former security chief of Abhisit lead protest and judicialization, remdered the Yingluck government not able to function. That un-able to function, coupled with opposing protest, from Suthep and the Reds, lead army chief to attempt to broker a deal, but he failed, and as a result took control. Sunsequent news from Suthep, says he an Prayuth have been working together to topple Yingluck. Prayuth deny the charges.

(Up-Dated) Suthep said, he an Prayuth, have been working together, to destabilize Thailand, for the setting up of a coup, for a Thailand under a Dictatorship.

1)

Violent Rubber Farmers Enter Scene

Several local press reports the violentrubberfarmers have joined the Abhisit‘s Dems, Suthep lead, protest at the Democracy monument. Local pictures show the violent rubber farmers being bused into Bangkok and appearing on the stage at the Democracy Monument. Earlier, in Southern Thailand, the rubber farmers were seen is several violent act, such as stealing massive large trucks filled with gas, and used the trucks to to block roads. The violent also included the rubber farmers attacking police with acid bags, injuring some 20 to 30 police officers. The violence also included burning down about 10 police cars and trucks. About 15,000 to 25,000 protester are at the Democracy Monument, depending on the time. The protest started out as a protest against the Amnesty Bill, but many neutral observer said the protest was targeting to topple Yingluck, using the Amnesty Bill, only as an excuse. The Thai intelligence apparatus have warned of the 3rd hand, taking advantage of the situation, in causing violence to blame the government. But with the addition of the violent rubber farmers to the protest, the situation is now highly explosive. The rubber farmers come from mostly Southern Thailand, a Abhisit’s Dems strong voter based. More and more under-cover police observing at protest, have been identified, and beaten up by the crowd.

2)

Judicialization of Thailand & Civil War Potential

Deep division between the Red Shirts and Yingluck‘s Pheu Thai Party was put aside for now, as Sondhi of the Yellow Shirts, called on preparation to ask the Thai King, to grant Thailand a government. That Sondhi call, where Sondhi is considered the key strategist of the elite establishment, comes as the Thai Constitutional Court, in the midst of the anti Amnesty Bill political up-heaval last week, made a statement that it will decide if Parliament amending the constitution to require Senators to be elected, if it is against the constitution. If the constitutional court rule that it is not legal, one possible outcome is the kicking out of office most MPs and Senators in Parliament. The Thai Constitutional Court is controlled by the elite. According to the theory going around, that emptying Parliament of MPs and Senators, will leave a political vacuum. That political vacuum, argues many, is where Sondhi’s request to the Thai King will come in. Most neutral observer, says the Red Shirts will not sit aside, as Democracy and the Yinghluck government is torn down. That will in effect leave the Red Shirts and the Abhisit’s Dems voter base, still charged up over the Amnesty Bill by Abhisit Dems, to confront each other, along with remnants of the fascist in Thailand that will assist Abhisit’s Dems voter base. One intelligence agency estimate put the death, in event of a civil war, at about 5,000 to 10,000 Thais. The Red Shirts have gathered in different parts of Thailand, with the numbers being about 50,000 to 100,000.

3)

Civil Disobedient Rejected

Several local press reports, Suthep, leading the protest to topple Yingluck, have called on the Thais to pay no tax and for state enterprise unions to cut utilities to the government, in a move of civil disobedience. However, is the call legitimate civil disobedience or just plain insanity. One answer, is that the Thai chambers of commerce, have said that paying tax is the duty of the Thai people and the chamber opposes the Suthep call. And on state enterprise union cutting utilities to government agencies, the government have came out and say in response that the unions should not hurt the reputation of their respected state enterprise. The Thai state enterprise unions have been infiltrated by the Fascist. Suthep also called on the Thais to stop working. It is un-clear which century is Suthep planning to take Thailand back to. But perhaps real estate companies, should start looking at caves.

4)

New York Times and Asian Correspondent Looks at the Abhisit’s Dems Protest

As Thai Intel have said before, the anti Amnesty Bill, is just a tool being used by Abhisit’s Dems, to topple the Yingluck’s government:

The following is from the New York Times

With thousands of antigovernment protesters in the streets of Bangkok on Monday, Thailand’s opposition announced a campaign of civil disobedience, including a three-day general strike later this week and a call for businesses to delay paying their taxes.

The protests against the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra signaled a return to the fractious and volatile politics that destabilized Thailand several years ago. At least four large demonstrations were held simultaneously across Bangkok on Monday, closing schools and stoking fears of clashes between rival groups.

“I would like to urge all Thais to fight with the people so that a great, absolute and sustainable victory belongs to Thailand,” Suthep Thaugsuban, a protest leader and senior member of the opposition Democrat Party, told a crowd of thousands on Monday.

It was not yet clear late on Monday evening whether his call for a general strike Wednesday through Friday would be widely heeded.

The initial spark for the protests, which began a week ago, was an amnesty bill proposed by the government that would have eased the return of Thaksin Shinawatra, a polarizing figure who was ousted as prime minister in a 2006 military coup. The lower house of Parliament passed the bill earlier this month, but the Senate decisively rejected it on Monday.

“The opposition to the amnesty bill has been deep and wide,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. “It has now escalated into an effort to overthrow the government.”

The protests have rattled the government of Ms. Yingluck, Mr. Thaksin’s sister. The prime minister has said repeatedly that if the amnesty bill is defeated, it will not be considered in Parliament again, and she has pleaded with protesters to stop their demonstrations.

The bill initially angered many of the governing party’s supporters, known as the red shirts, because along with pardoning Mr. Thaksin in the corruption cases he faces, it would have offered amnesty to those responsible for the bloody crackdown on his followers in 2010. But the majority of red shirts appeared to have swung back to the government’s side, and they staged their own rally with tens of thousands of people on Sunday and another in northeastern Thailand on Monday.

Thai politics, which until recently had enjoyed relative calm under Ms. Yingluck’s more than two years in office, appear to have returned to the polarized and unpredictable deadlock between opponents and supporters of Mr. Thaksin.

One of Mr. Thaksin’s main rivals, Sondhi Limthongkul, described the political conflict on Monday as a battle of good and evil. In a measure of the frustration with Thailand’s political problems, he repeated a call to return political power to Thailand’s king. “I think Thailand must suspend the role of politicians for at least two to three years,” he said. He asserted that Mr. Thaksin was exercising power from abroad, including deciding who got major appointments in the government.

Mr. Thaksin, the de facto leader of the governing party, Pheu Thai, has been weakened by the amnesty controversy, Mr. Thitinan said. But Pheu Thai retained strong support, especially in northeastern Thailand, where a third of the electorate lives, Mr. Thitinan said.

Mr. Thaksin is “farther away than ever from coming home,” Mr. Thitinan said. “But the avenues to his return are not totally closed.”

There is not much to be exposed for the opposition party, the Democrats, for they have made it clear what they want—to get rid of the government by any means necessary, including extra-parliamentary and undemocratic means. But some things that the Democrat leaders have said in the past few days confirm that truth and reconciliation is just a concept with no practical use.

No more pretense for the rule of law, Suthep told his supporters it was up to them to judge what to do with the tyrants—Thaksin and Yingluck. Suthep’s announced plan for a “people’s court” to be set up on the street today shows the disdain for constitutional provisions establishing the Thai legal system. Given the high level of emotions that is a minor detail. To heighten the frenzy of distrust and hatred further Suthep has also said (without providing sources or evidence to back the claim) the government is plotting to use snipers on him and the Democrat protesters. And perhaps in response to many chuckles at him leading a protest against corruption, he has ensured his party’s supporters that he “never cheated” in his political life. (Surely he has never lied either.)

The words of the Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva spoken on the rally stage last night show that he exists in an alternate reality. “If there is even one dead protester, don’t even hope to continue living in this land, the whole [Shinawatra] clan!,” shouted the former prime minister who presided over and refused to take any responsibility for the protest crackdowns that left over 90 people dead in 2010. Perhaps Abhisit believed Suthep’s tale that the protesters “ran into bullets,” despite court findings of at least some deaths at the hand of security forces.

The beautifully organized whistle-blowing flash mobs started out with a “No to Blanket Amnesty” slogan but the loud shouts quickly turned into “Get out.” It’s transparent behind the kill-bill whistles and lunch-time photo-ops lies more hatred for one man than a care for democracy and justice for all. The anti-amnesty whistle-blowers are photogenic, but listening more closely their words one realizes appearances of intelligence and education can be deceptive. Inside the elevated mood of the street demonstrators festers an elevated sense of self-righteousness, shallow slogans, and nauseating narcissism.

The whistle blowing protesters have been telling each other and anyone who would listen that theirs is a protest by “good people,” “not brutes.” “We are rich and educated,” they said, not tools of corrupt politicians (like the poor, uneducated, not-good, uncouth people on the other side). Some put their thoughts onto personal placards to make sure the world knows: “I am not hired because my salary is big,” “my family is rich,” etc. As though being rich, privileged, well-groomed and well-dressed with a monthly salary were requirements for justice and democracy.

Scratch the surface of this inflated self-image and find the contempt for the opposite of “us.” Parallel to the pathological obsession with Thaksin’s evils is the glaring omission of the evils of those on their side, and the loss—deaths and suffering—of the fellow women and men on the other side. Within their black and white, self-absorbed world, there is no room for empathy.

“Chulalongkorn students holding a protest banner: “[The ones who cheated, who killed, who burned, gave themselves an amnesty.”

The so-called guardians of democracy have shown their true colors too in bright neon especially on Sunday, when the group of appointed Senators boycotted the senate meeting to deliberate the bill, although doing so would help solve the problem according to the rules of parliamentary democracy and calm down the situation. But that apparently was not their role.

Rosana Tositrakul, a key member the Group of 40 Senators, said the group refused to attend the meeting because the amnesty bill was “the government’s problem,” not the Senate’s “burden.” Shortly after she told the press that the situation has already “gone beyond amnesty bill”, calling the government to dissolve parliament, echoing calls by some supporters of the opposition. This foot dragging coincided with Suthep’s plan to keep the anti-government/amnesty protests going strong until Monday evening for the much awaited ruling on Preah Vihear by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on late Monday, which is expected or hoped to be add more fuel to the anti-government fire.

Many institutional anti-amnesty groups’ swift and loud condemnation of Pheu Thai’s ill-conceived amnesty bill is a stark contrast to their deafening silence when the coup makers gave themselves a complete amnesty written in the Constitution (Article 309). In fact, some behind their institutions’ stance against the amnesty were drafting committee of the post-coup Constitution. The fact that Thammasat University students were holding a protest banner calling for military cadets to join them in protest suggests that a course on irony ought to be required at the university.

Thammasat University students holding a protest banner: “Yellow-Red (Thammasat) are here. Where are Red-Yellow (Military Cadet Academy)? (The colors here refer to institutional colors, not political colors.)

Youthful ignorance and bias can be easily forgiven, but in esteemed adults the ignorance and bias injures credibility. That 63 judges actually signed a public petition against a proposed law pending in the legislature was staggering. It shows just how Thai judiciary still has a long way to go before it can expect judicial impartiality. And what with the former foreign minister and ASEAN secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan comparing the Pheu Thai government to the Hitler dictatorship? One would have thought a person of his experience and stature would know better than that.

5)

Bangkokians Accepts the Economic Cost

A few years back, when the Red Shirts occupied the shopping area of Rajprasong, the majority of the people of Bangkok were out-raged at the Red Shirts protesters, saying the protest was hurting the economy. During that protest, many Red Shirts noted, that the people of Bangkok, years earlier, mostly supported the Yellow Shirts occupation of the airport, and brush aside the US$ billions of damage to the Thai economy. Some Red Shirts are noting the same again, as the Thai central bank chief, said a few days ago, that Thai economy is starting to get hurt from the protest, yet silence from the Bangkokians on the negative impact of their protest on the economy. It must also be noted, that one of the major rationale on the call by the majority of Bangkok people, to stop the Red Shirts protest at Rajprasong, was because of the damage to the economy. That crack-down, saw about 100 protesters killed.

6)

Red Shirts Gather to Beef-Up Yingluck’s Government

About 80,000 to 100,000 Red Shirts Thais have rallied at Muang Thong Thani Sunday evening in support of the government. After they rallied at Ratchaprasong in the morning, the red shirts move to demonstrate at the purpose ground of Muang Thong Thani. They said the rally was held to protect democracy. The rally was held after many groups of people, namely the anti Thaksin and anti Yingluck‘s Abhisit’s Dems voter base in Bangkok, came out on streets to protest against the amnesty bill. Many neutral observer says the protest against the Amnesty bill, is just an excuse by Abhisit Dems to topple the government, however, the amnesty bill had to a certain extent alienated the Red Shirts from its ally to the government, as most Red Shirts is oppose to Abhisit being granted amnesty, from his government killing of the Red Shirts protesters. There are several protest in Bangkok currently, one at the Democracy Monument, by Abhisit’s Dems and the Fascist near the center of Thailand’s governing center, and today’s Red Shirts. All the protest comes ahead of the potentially divisive and explosive ruling by the World Court tomorrow on the Thai Cambodia ruling. The Thai elite establishment, and its various independent units is waiting for the best time, if it occur, to kick Yingluck out of office. A group of Fascist has set up a protest near the Cambodia border.

(Up-Date 1) About 50K to 80K Red Shirts Thais in the Issan region city of Kon Keng have gathered to support the Yingluck government. (Up-Date 2) About 40K to 60K Red Shirts Thais in Northern Thailand have gathered to support Yingluck’s government. (Up-Date 3) About 30K to 50K Red Shirts Thais gathered at Samut Prakarn last night. (Up-Date 4) About 10K to 20K Red Shirts gathered at Chonburi, near Pattaya lest night)

7)

2006 Coup head Calls for Forgiveness & Reconciliation

Well, you really can not blame people and attach them to their past forever, no matter what they did. Sooner or later, one just got to “Forgive and Reconcile” otherwise, there is just no chance for development. Several local press reports, the man who staged the 2006 coup against Thaksin, Sondhi, in responding to the current situation, said he wish Thais would forgive each other, and reconcile their differences. While everyone is focusing on the amnesty bill being about Thaksin, of course, few are talking about how the military, wrote into the military constitution, that their coup action, past or future, is all not against the law, and thus basically gave themselves “Blanket Forgiveness.” And yet, beside all the legal and political issues, sides and shape, fundamentally how are we to view, the military, helping the Abhisit kill the Red Shirts protesters? Can we ever forgive them?

Fundamentally, if the military have learn a lesson, from the killing of the protesters, recently and in the past, and not to do it again, then perhaps, we should forgive them. It might be difficult to understand, if you have little understanding of the military, but fundamentally, what many said, is that the military, should have not bring “Hard core, jungle soldier” to be involved in controlling protest, as the clash of differences is just way too much, and violence is almost certain. Hard core jungle soldiers, are trained to be at the forefront of battle grounds, ready to sacrifice their lives for the country, in defense of the country. When one brings such soldiers to the middle of Bangkok, confronting a protesting people, and like the Abhisit’s government did, painting the protesters as enemy of the country, that is the worse situation that can occur.

How do we judge, if the military have learned a lesson or not? Well, it is difficult but inside the military, there are those calling for democratic governance inside the military. Unfortunately, those voice, is being silence, by Prayuth, the current army chief. And Prayuth, have elevated, for a variety of reasons, the soldiers who were active in the killing of the Red Shirts protesters. And thus, overall, while I agree with Sondhi, about “Forgiveness and Reconciliation” to forgive Prayuth, it will require, some solid proof, that the Thai military, is moving towards some “Democratic Governance.”

Well, if you know Thailand, there has always been the theory about how people outside of Bangkok, in Thailand, are the ones to create the government, and the people of Bangkok, are the ones that destroys the government. So here we go again, as the government that won the last election from most of the people, outside of Bangkok, delivered a government to Bangkok, the Bangkok people are busy tearing down the government. The roots of it all is of course, that before Thaksin, the Bangkok people basically cornered all the power. But after Thaksin, power was shared and the Bangkok elite, which of course control most of the Bangkok people, was not happy to share the power. The current protest in Bangkok, if you were to look beyond the head-line, are about 80% to 90% being the old gangs and old people, that have always been anti Thaksin and anti Yingluck, from the universities, to the Silom crowd and of course, to the Abhisit’s Dems voter based at the Democracy Monument. Other, are of course, splinters of the elite, like the independent units and justice system, along with the various shades of the Fascist.

9)

Artist and Doctors Ballistics on Politics

Well, globally, in most democracies, most artist and doctors, are all for the liberal type of thinking, cutting-edge, about reconciling and forgiveness on a host of subjects they touch. But in Thailand, the Thai artists association and the doctors are all for condemning people to their past, and so one can forget about ever being forgiven. No amnesty for anyone, like probably never even heard of Amnesty International.

Actually, with this type of thinking, is probably why, Thailand still has death penalty and lese majeste. And of course, how can anyone forget, how some hospitals, like Chula, say they will not treat people, hurt in the Abhisit‘s crack-down on the Red Shirts, and now at the same hospital, say they will not treat police, if injured from the various topple Yingluck protest.

10)

Opportunist Court and Anti Corruption Body

The elite’s control Thai court system and the elite’s control anti corruption unit are both making moves, to take advantage of the movement against the amnesty bill, to come out accepted and popular. Local press reports the Thai court system spokesman, has OK, for judges, to participate in the protest against the amnesty bill. The press also reports the anti corruption unit, is to petition to the UN’s that the Thai amnesty bill is against Thailand’s agreement with international convention, on anti corruption. It is quite remarkable, how any justice system in the world, can allow its judges to go on protest, against a legislature by Parliament. And it quite remarkable, how Thailand’s anti corruption unit, long known for working for the elite establishment, is inciting corruption, to the United Nations.

11)

Yingluck’s Bold Goals

Many local and global press talks about how Yingluck, with little experience in politics, was able to swept the last general election, by a land-slide, saying she bought votes with populous policy. Other, with cutting-edge analytical skill, said however, Yingluck is a sharp and cunning political operative, with her three main campaign message, being to bring Democracy, Reconciliation and Populous Policy to Thailand, struck by massive acceptance, with the main life blood of wishes, by the Thai people.

The problem for Yingluck, since coming to power about two years ago, is how to deliver those goals, that the majority of the Thai people want, against a torrent of nasty history, from an an anti democracy elite establishment and a Thai people, many clinging on to the past and not letting go. Then there is the populous policy, increasingly, unsustainable. Some argue, those three policy promised by Yingluck, are the building block for a better Thai future, offering synergy among the policies.

The saying that most successful people will tell you, when goals are challenged and the road to success looks dim, is that success, is not letting failure stop one’s mission, but success, is marching on, despite all the bad odds. Are Yingluck’s campaign promises, again, to bring Democracy, Reconciliation and Populous Policy, way too much to hope for in Thailand? It has been about 10 years now, since the Thai political crisis had started, and like it or not, those 10 years has been Thailand’s lost years, damaging Thailand, to put it in numbers, many trillions upon trillions of US$, as Thailand at best, for that past 10 years, just stood frozen in place, with little development. And again, that ugly cycle of killing people by the elite establishment.

What strikes me, as I look at the current political mess in Thailand, believe it or not, it looks increasingly similar, to the beginning of that 10 years crisis, all over again. Whatever you want to call it, protest against amnesty or whatever, basically, for everyone, Red or Yellow, and all political shades, it has again boiled down and erupted, all about the Thaksin problem.

To the establishment, as always, hate Thaksin keeps them alive with hope of not loosing Thailand to Democracy, Liberty and Justice. And to those who cherish Democracy, Liberty and Justice, as always, Thaksin is too controversial and damaging to be offered those values. To all sides, Thaksin is basically a sacrificial lamb, and in a Christian context, Thaksin, is basically offered to to Gods, in hope, of keeping everyone happy dreaming about their goals, and to be in God‘s good light.

The problem is when will Thailand get over, its obsession with Thaksin, and move towards Democracy, Reconciliation and with some adjustments, a sustainable populous policy? Two years ago, that was the wishes of the majority of the Thai people. Will Yingluck fail the Thai people? Is she capable of maneuvering, pass the dark gathering clouds and deliver the Thai people, to better days, and not just a repeat of yesterdays?

12)

Intelligence says All Protest Group Linked in Trying to Topple Yingluck

Several Thai press report Thailand’sNational Security head, Paradon, saying that all protester groups are linked in trying to topple Yingluck. Currently, there are about 2,000 protesters at the Urapong intersection, backed by Abhisit’s Bangkok Governor, Sukhumphan top advisers. Then there are the Southern rubber protesters, backed by several of Abhisit Dems Southern MPs, blocking roads, with about 1,000 people active, in the Southern Region that supports Abhisit’s Dems. Then there was about 8,000 to 10,000 protesters last night, at Samsen train station directly organized by Abhisit’s Dems, where several Dems MPs resigned from the party’s ruling committee, to take active role in the protest, to circumvent legal entanglement that can hurt the party. About the only group of protesters, where the link to Abhisit’s Dems is less pronounced, is the White Mask, numbering about 5,000, that is linked to Sukhumphan, only in that the protester leaders have used cars belonging to the city of Bangkok to lead the protest. Then there is the Lumpini Park Fascist protesters, numbering about 500, but can get fresh support from th normally violent vocational students that are ultra nationalist. Sukhumphan has laid out a welcoming mat for all protesters, for example, in providing electricity generators and other services to all protesters. While, each of these protesting group, cite various reasons for their protest, as Paradon has mentioned, all of them are targeting to topple Yingluck’s government. At Samsen train station, for example, Abhisit’s seurity chief last night at the protest, said people should come to the protest because, quote, “The music is great and the food is great.” Those words echo, earlier words, by Kasit, a Yellow Shirts, who said when the Yellow Shirts went to occupy the Thai airport that quote: “The music is great and the food is great.” Kasi is a Abhisit’s Dems MP, with strong links to the Fascist. That occupation destabilized a government close to Thaksin and eventually toppled that government. Abhisit’s Dems are trying to bank the fall of Yingluck on the Amnesty Bill and on the near future ruling on the disputed Thai Cambodia, Phra Vihear relics. Thailand’s independent units are also looking for the best time, if it occurs, to kick Yingluck out of office.

13)

Abhisit and Suthep Indicted for Murder

Several local press reports, former Prime Minister, Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, and his deputy, Mr. Suthep Thuegsuban, were indicted to face charges for authorising the military crackdown to calm the unrest in Bangkok in 2010. Mr. Nantasak Poonsuk, Spokesperson for the Office of Attorney General (OAG) said that the OAG agreed with the proposal made by the Division of Special investigation (DSI) that Mr. Abhisit and Mr. Suthep, who are currently serving as Democrat MPs, are guilty for the decision, which resulted in the death of 92 people. Presented evidence and witnesses indicated that Mr. Abhisit and Mr. Suthep’s decision to allow the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation to launch the military crackdown and the use of live ammunition are considered as an ′overreaction′operate military crackdown and the use of real weapons was casted as ‘overreaction’ and had led to several deaths and injuries, said the OAG spokesperson.

AP Reports; Prosecutors in Thailand have indicted a former prime minister for his alleged role in the deaths of demonstrators during a 2010 crackdown on anti-government protests. Attorney-General’s Office spokesman Nanthasak Poolsuk said on Monday that Abhisit Vejjajiva was charged with “causing others to commit murders” through orders he issued to end a nine-week occupation of downtown Bangkok by anti-government protesters. More than 90 people were killed during the protests, many of them when security forces swept demonstrators from the streets. Mr Nanthasak says former deputy premier Suthep Thaugsuban was also indicted on the same charges on Monday. Suthep was in charge of the ad hoc government-run security agency at the time.(Source)

14)

Support from Terrorist

As Thai Intel have said over and over, the elite establishment, in its hatred of Thaksin and Yingluck and going after them, have under-gone a transformation. That transformation, apart from other, have seen them turned into crazy lunatics. Khao Sod English reports: A banner proclaiming allegiance to international terror network Al Qaeda has appeared in the anti-government protests encampment at Uruphong Intersection. The banner reads: “Underground Al Qaeda is here!“. It is hanging on the western side of the protest site, between two banners saying “Flowers for those who are brave and love justice” and “Bangkok people with more than 100[%] in their hearts are here!”. The context of the banner is unclear, as there is no immediate information how the protesters, who are demanding for resignation of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, might be related to the terrorist organisation. However, in July anti-government social network sites had widely shared a videowhich claimed to show Al Qaeda operatives threatening to assassinate former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the brother of Ms. Yingluck. Security officials quickly dismissed the video as a forgery, but many anti-government netizens nevertheless cheered the alleged Al Qaeda agents for standing up against Mr. Thaksin, whom they perceived to be a corrupt dictator. (Source)

15)

Amnesty in Thailand? Shinawatra Family and the Red Shirts

The Amnesty Bill, which currently targets a blanket “Top to Bottom” amnesty, for all those involved in the Thai political divide that had erupted since the 2006 coup, have cause wide-spread debate in Thailand, about the relationship between the Shinawatra Family and the Red Shirts, as with the amnesty, Thaksin could walk free and return to Thailand, but also sees those responsible for the killing of about 100 Red Shirts protesters, also let go from facing justice. Thaksin wants freedom to return to Thailand and the “Re-Set” Thailand to re-start the country again, with the slate wiped clean for everyone, and the Red Shirts wants accountability to the killing. The debate had raised the question, also, about a democracy vs dictatorship cycle, as in the past, mostly, there has always been an amnesty for all, and thus many argue, promotes a cycle.

Here is the fact sheet:

Fact 1) Before Thaksin came to power in Thiland, the grass-roots were maginalized, meaning little representation into the Thai political process, ignored by the elite establishment of Bangkok, who shared political power, as a limited competing oligopoly. But since Thaksin came to power, with his various populous policies that targeted the majority of the Thai people, the people became involved and linked to politics, with many especially in the Issan Region and Northern Thailand, with also many in the Central Plains, seeing Thaksin as a hero.

Fact 2) The 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin, angered many who saw Thaksin as a hero, and saw a small movement of various group of people, began activity against the coup. One such group, the Red Shirts, began to emerge and incorporated other groups under its umbrella, and with Thaksin, fresh in the minds of most of the Thais as a hero, the Red Shirts, fighting against the coup, the Red Shirts and Thaksin, became close ally, in struggling against the forces of the 2006 coup, and its various entrenchment into the Thai society, structurally. Unconfirmed reports say Thaksin created the Red Shirts, as a tool for his fight against the establishment. But on this, there has never been actual proof, mostly just a belief, often citing circumstantial evidence.

Fact 3) From a mission of fighting against the 2006 coup, the Red Shirts began to a process of developing a self-identity, as a force, to promote Democracy, Liberty and Justice in Thailand, starting first with liberty, for freedom against being control and under the establishment, to justice, for demanding the end to the wide-spread “Double Standard” application of justice in Thailand, prejudice against the people, privilege to the elite. Then the movement began to stress democracy, namely the concept of by the people, of the people and for the people. This transformation, began and took roots, for years, through the struggle with the elite establishmt. Thaksin, throughout the process, was seen as an important ally and driving force.

Fact 4) The time, that strongly united Thaksin and the Red Shirts together, but perhaps some conflict as well, was during the protest of the Abhisit government, at the Rajprasong intersection, where Thaksin was greatly involved in the Red Shirts protest there, making repeated video link into the protest, giving encouragement, to keep up the protest and to struggle on. The Red Shirts leadership, meanwhile, split, into hawks and doves, with those wanting to negotiate with Abhisit, for an election, some time down the road, and those who wants to keep up the struggle, in pressing for Abhisit to call election, in the near term. Thaksin favored struggle on for a quick election, and urged the Red Shirts to struggle on.

Fact 5) That perhaps Thaksin and Red Shirts conflict, could have be confirmed, by reports that says Seh Daeng, a Thai army general, went to see Thaksin in the Middle East, and gain Thaksin support, for Seh Dang, to take care of the Red Shirts security. Seh Dang and the Red Shirts leader, often have differing strategy, with Seh Daeng, a hawk on security, highly focused on defense for the Red Shirts, where the Red Shirts were struggling to shake off accusation, from the elite establishment, that the Red Shirts movement was aggressive. In one such instant, on the gate of the Chula Hospital, conflict broke out between Seh Daeng and the Red Shirts, with Seh Daeng, saying allowing the gate to be open was a security risk, but a Red Shirts leader, disagreed, and went to the gate and opened the gate. The situation was complicate, because Seh Daeng was close to Thaksin, and the red Shirts leaders were also close to Thaksin.

Fact 6) Seh Daeng was eventually assassinated by the elite establishment, before it made a move to dispel the Red Shirts from Rajprasong. In that break-up of the Red Shirts protest, about 100 Red Shirts protesters were killed by the Abhisit government, and the killing, went deep into the psyche of the Red Shirts, as proof of the brutality and murderous ways of the elite establishment, and everything that is wrong about Thailand. The killing, also raised the Red Shirts, to go down in history, as a people’s movement, that had suffered the most number of killed, by the elite establishment. At this point, the Red Shirts and also most neutral observer, says Abhisit’s government, and the elite establishment that supports him, had lost all legitimacy, to be involved in Thailand’s politics.

Fact 7) Abhisit stay in power, however, and called for a general election, and went twisting everything, from amending the constitution to weaken Thaksin’s chances of winning, to allocating billions of baht worth of budget to buy political allegiances. Many Red Shirts and others were alarmed, as Abhisit manipulated the odds against Thaksin, and were calling for and boycott of the election, and also re-news protest, such as Rajprasong again, as while the crack-down on Rajprasong had dispersed the Red Shirts, but within months, even with all its leaders in jail, massive gathering of the Red Shirts occurred, again drawing 10s of 1,000s to Rajprasong again, for one day gathering event. It was a show of staying power of the Red Shirts. In these gathering, Thaksin was not involved in any way, but mostly spontaneously occurred.

Fact 8) Leading up to the election, with Yingluck, she campaigned on Democracy, Reconciliation and Populous Policy, and while Yingluck’s call for Reconciliation, was questioned by some Red Shirts, as to what it meant, by and large, it was ignored, and the Red Shirts, threw its weight in support of the Yingluck campaign. She won the election, by a land-slide, and noted by many Red Shirts, is that there were little Red Shirts leader represented in her government. Yingluck, true to her election campaign, after the flood crisis, began to focus on Democracy, Reconciliation and Populous. The Red Shirts continued their gathering, on important dates, and Thaksin would video link into the gathering, but the distance between Thaksin and the Red Shirts emerge, with Thaksin taking about reconciliation, with Thaksin words in those video link, greatly criticized by Red Shirts.

Fact 9) Yingluck, originally and early on, compromised with the Red Shirts, and went for a water-down reconciliation, involving just the rank and files. But the latest development, is a wide “Top To Bottom” amnesty, that would grant amnesty to all, where the Red Shirts head leader, Thida, says she can not betray the people and allow those who did the killing to walk free. This bought up, also speculation, of a deal between Thaksin and the elite establishment, to allow him back to Thailand when the time is right as a free person, and for the Thai military to be off the hook of the killing. Thaksin favors a “Blanket top down amnesty” but Thaksin and Yingluck relationship overall, is at times compromise, at times Yingluck gets her way and at times, Thaksin gets his way.

Fact 10) Yingluck’s government, increasingly, as having survive several challenges by the elite establishment, also without a great deal of active help from the Red Shirts, but with the Red Shirts, acting like a powerful reserves, was getting stronger and stronger as time pass. Her populous policies, like Thaksin, such as rice and infrastructure, is winning her government incredible allies, across Thailand, even many from the elite establishment. The Red Shirts meanwhile, show no signs that its popularity is abating, and its commitment to Democracy, Liberty and Justice, has never been more pronounced and accepted as a fundamental fact about the nature of the Red Shirts.

Fact 11) Many in the Red Shirts movement, wants the Red Shirts, to transform itself into a political party. In the Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party, there is a Red Shirts caucus. If a recent poll of the Issan is an indicator, Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party remains popular, dropping a bit, but most said they will not vote for Abhisit’s Dems, no matter what. An election is about two years away. The Shinawatra Family is very popular in Northern Thailand. The Red Shirts, apart from Issan, is also strong with the lower middle income downward, in the cities and town across Thailand. In Issan, most Red Shirts are both pro Red Shirts and Thaksin. Abhiit’s Dems, have cornered the Southern Thais. The Central Plains is a major battle ground for all, except Abhisit’s Dems.

Fact 12) Thailand continues to be hit with a “Judicialization” by activist justice system and independent units, that leans towards the elite establishment, represented by Abhisit Dems. The court and independent units, since the 2006 coup and a little before that, is a constant threat to the survival of anything related to Thaksin.

16)

Understanding why Abhisit is the way he is

Abhisit‘s origins lie in a Thai-Chinese family which has cultivated close ties to Thailand’sruling elite for generations. Abhisit, known as Mark to his British friends, was educated at Eton then Oxford, where he won a first in PPE later returning to take a master’s degree in economics. This exotic background set him apart in a Thai political scene. But perhaps his “foreignness”, some say Abhisit has struggled to connect with Thai voters.”He’s not a grassroots guy,” said Dr Thitinan Pongsudhirak of Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University. His government, of course, is responsible for the killing of about 100 Red Shirts protesters.

The following is from New Statesman

The Eton Scholarship Question: this is how the British elite are trained to think (Source)

As one of the school’s scholarship exam questions shows, young boys are encouraged to think that humanity, compassion, even sense are secondary to winning. This is how we’ve ended up with politicians who will enact any policy, no matter the human cost, just so their party will win.

How will you defend the murder of civilians when you’re Prime Minister? Pupils competing for a scholarship to Eton have been asked just that, in the following question from a 2011 exam which seemed to draw its inspiration from recent events in London:

The headmaster of Eton, responding to the furore on Twitter, claimed that this was an intellectual exercise, based on Machiavelli’s The Prince, and was taken out of context. It was nothing of the kind. In fact, questions like this – topics for debate designed to reward pupils for defending the morally indefensible in the name of maintaining “order” – crop up throughout the British elite education system, from prep schools to public schools like Eton to public speaking competitions right up to debating societies like the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, which are modelled on parliament for a reason.

This is how you’re meant to argue when you’re eventually in charge. You’re trained for it, and part of that training is regularly being presented with morally indefensible positions to defend anyway or risk losing whatever competition you’re engaged with. I have seen perfectly decent young men get carried away defending genocide and torture because that’s the only way to win. Those who are unable to do so are taught that they have no business having political opinions. The people assumed to be the future elite are not rewarded for getting the answer which is most correct, most compassionate or humane or even sensible – they’re rewarded for smashing the opposition. And that’s how you get politicians who will argue anything they’re told to, enact any policy they’re told to no matter how many how many people will get hurt, just so that their team can win.

Moreover, this isn’t just a standard homework question. It appears on a scholarship entrance exam, a test designed to be sat by young men seeking to join the ranks of the rich and powerful by virtue of merit and smarts rather than family money. Most fee-paying schools have such a system in place, especially the really elite ones which need to maintain a veneer of public conscience to bolster their tax-exempt charity status (yes, Eton is technically a charity) and boost exam results by scattering some middle-class nerds amongst the rich twits. I sat an entrance exam just like this thirteen years ago, because my parents wanted me to have a private education and they couldn’t afford the fees. Of the hundreds of exams I’ve sat since, none has had quite such a material effect on my future.

Had a question like this appeared on that test, I know I’d have been torn. I wouldn’t be torn now, of course, I’d write ‘go fuck yourself’ across the paper in my sparkliest pens, but right now I’m an adult with a job, not a scared thirteen-year-old who wants to make her mum proud. The obvious answer- that any Prime Minister who attempts to justify the murder of protesters after the rule of law has disintegrated is not fit to rule and should step down immediately – is not one that appears on the test. And that’s the point of tests like these.

It’s not enough to be clever. What this test says is: if you want to be part of the ruling elite, you have to share our values, and one of those values is maintaining power at any cost, even if it involves defending the indefensible. Having a moral compass that doesn’t spin wildly at the promise of power is an active impediment. The significant line in that extended question is ‘You are the Prime Minister.’ As if you’d be anything else.

Eton trains rich young men for power. The all-boys school has produced nineteen Prime Ministers, including the current one. The Mayor of London and a significant chunk of the cabinet also attended the school. Nearly all of our most powerful politicians, in short, went to Eton, and were trained in its values. Values that include responding to a question about shooting protesters dead with clever rhetoric rather than a long, hard look at your own conscience, as well as reading Machiavelli as an instruction manual rather than a satire. Whoever set this exam question, one that obliges thirteen-year-old boys to defend the murder of protesters as Prime Minister, knew of the likelihood that one of those boys might well actually be Prime Minister one day, and be in the position to order protesters killed for real. How many marks do you get for that?

In most elite clubs and societies, there are questions you’re not allowed to ask. For a certain breed of flush-cheeked young British aristocrats, this is the question that will never, ever appear on an exam paper:

Is there any particular reason why we should be in charge?

17)

Amnesty Bill: In Historical Context

There is a great number of Thais that are in jail or will be in jail in the future, for political activities since the 2006 Coup. Traditionally in Thailand, things comes and goes in cycle, and Thailand had gone through something like the 2006 coup before. In all of the past dictatorship vs democracy torrents of cycle, those involved have mostly been granted amnesty, it is only the question of proper time. The Yingluck government has proposed an Amnesty Bill, and at Parliament, it went into the various vetting and reading and voting, as a watered down version of amnesty, involving just the people involved, not the top people that are involved. Somehow, at Parliament a “Entire Top to Bottom” Amnesty was considered in one of the steps, that will go to the final voting by Parliament. That has stirred a hornet’s nest of hate Thaksin and hate Yingluck people, but of course, these are mostly the old gangs and old people.

The following is a Fact Sheet:

Fact 1) Thailand is ranked 4th globally for coups and after every dictatorship vs democracy torrent cycle, eventually there is an amnesty, that have even also included lifting and return of assets seized by the coup makers from politicians, that the coup makers went after for corruption. Thaksin, with his assets seized is both unique and not unique. He is not unique, in that people in his place have been granted amnesty before and assets returned, but he is unique, in that the elite establishment is using hate Thaksin, to keep alive their philosophy in Thailand. Meaning in other upheaval in Thailand, events return to normal, but with Thaksin, the elite establishment will not accept and allow normalcy.

Fact 2) In past upheaval in Thailand, like the Red Shirts who were killed by the Abhisit‘s government, Thai citizens were also killed before. However, those who did the killing in the past, like military generals, have escaped all prosecution and the killing is much forgotten by the Thai people, and the generals who is responsible for the killing, went on living normal lives. However, with the Abhisit government killing, the victim, being the Red Shirts is a powerful grassroots movement with millions of membership and followers and they refuse to forget and let-go, but want those responsible for the killing to be punished.

Fact 3) There is great speculation on what happened and who ordered, for the current “Tamed” amnesty bill, to be tentatively transform into a “Broad Top Down” amnesty bill, that could see Thaksin also being granted amnesty, along with Abhisit and the military, for the killings. At this point no one can confirm what occurred, except that on the committee vetting the amnesty bill, sits large numbers of Yingluck Pheu Thai Party members. Abhisit could benefit from the top-down amnesty bill, as he is getting closer and closer to being charged with murder and cases in court so far has went mostly against him. However, Thaksin Twittered that Abhisit is not afraid of the courts, because the Thai courts, part of the elite establishment, will likely protect Abhisit, in the final analysis and judgement.

Fact 4) Most in jail right now for political activity associated with the pro-longed Thai political crisis, are the Red Shirts and supporter of Thaksin. Others, such as the Yellow Shirts and their leaders, have mostly been granted bail. The Red Shirts wants their rank and files out of jail and supports the water-down amnesty bill that would grant amnesty to the ranks and files, but oppose the “Wide Top Down” amnesty bill. Abhisit oppose all amnesty bill, citing that the Red Shirts are terrorists who broke the law, went killing themselves and burned down Bangkok. This message is important for Abhisit to keep alive as it helps the party gain votes with the hate Thaksin, hate Yingluck and hate red Shirts crowd in Thailand. He of course, going crazy just from hearing about a “Wide Top Down” amnesty that could see Thaksin walking free in Thailand.

Fact 5) Thaksin have said he is not in a hurry to return to Thailand and had offered to stop his involvement in Thai politics, if his opponents did the same. In response to that offer, Abhisit’s Dems, went crazy, and attacked Thaksin, in its regular meet their voter base, about 100 times more fiercely. And Thaksin continued his involvement in Thai politics. Yingluck says Thaksin is her advisor but she makes the final decision. There are lots of mostly propaganda that this is not true, that Yingluck is a Thaksin Pupet or Clone, but Thai press is filled with news, hinting that there are much disagreement between Thaksin and Yingluck, and at times they compromise, at times Yingluck gets her way and at times, Thaksin gets his way. Yingluck, of course, wants to help her brother Thaksin, but is also faced with the reality that Thaksin is the most effective tool, being used by the elite establishment, to cling to their philosophy and as a tool to topple her from power. So, overall, Yingluck, perhaps, favor the water-down amnesty bill.

Fact 6) Concerning how the Thai people feel as a whole, there have been many polls, but most of the polls point to a fear that the amnesty bill issue will get out of hand, and cause re-newed political crisis in Thailand.

Fact 7) Globally, amnesty and reconciliation are concepts that have worked together hand in hand, however, it works under the condition that the society at large is ready to both remember the past and forgive what occurred in the past, and move forward with a shared vision. The problem for Thailand, is that the elite establishment are no willing to do that as it will mean, accepting democracy, liberty and justice and leave their Bangkok Liberal Philosophy behind. That Bangkok Liberal philosophy namely says democracy must be tamed and control, to give the so called “Good People” meaning the elite establishment, the ability to counter-balance, the so called “Bad People” being all things Thaksin and the Red Shirts. Most neutral observer says all of that is a propaganda lie adults tells the young kids, as all it is about is that the elite establishment does not want to loose its special status and power, over Thailand.

Fact 8) Thailand is a country that have been hit with “Judicialization” by an elite leaning activist court and the courts, such as the Constitutional Court, may take action that supports the elite establishment such as killing the amnesty bill, in any shape of form.

Fact 9) Abhisit’s Dems representing the elite establishment have lost every general election in about 20 years, signaling deep rootes re-jection of the elite establishment by the majority of the Thais. Also, in polls after polls, about 70% to 80% of the Thais want democracy and about 20% to 30% wants some form of dictatorship, meaning the elite establishment to be in power.

Fact 10) Emotions is running wild on all sides, on the amnesty bill, but Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party is assessing the situation and taking a wait and see attitude. It is yet to be seen if the issue will settle down or will it gyrate out of control, as the elite establishment is depending on, hoping for the issue to help generate people to its various protest to topple Yingluck and it is busy and tying to fan it into a “Wild-Fire” issue.

Fact 11) Just to mention briefly, because of lese majeste, but Thailand is a Constitutional Menarche, and what that means in itself and to Thailand is a subject that impacts Thai politics, and both directly and in-directly, impacts Thailand as it is and what it will become, and thus, impacts both amnesty and reconciliation in Thailand. Thai Intel can not provide more on this publicly because of lese majeste.

18)

Abhisit’s Dems Grand Plan

When one of Abhisit’s MP, said the Democrat Party, may become active in leading the protest against Thaksin and Yingluck, are we supposed to be surprise or laugh? For example, already well known, is that Abhisit’s Bangkok governor people are directly involved in leading the Urupong protest and is providing every necessity protest support infrastructure. And local press reports the Urupong protesters number, have grown from in the 100s to about a 1,000 in the past few days, and many are wondering what is going on. So what is going on?

Many foreigners are always amazed at the Thai press, all of them, from the pro élite Bangkok Post to other, like when while most knows the topple Yingluck protest at Urupong intersection, is mostly a creation of Abhisit’s “Set-Up” still, perhaps because of fear of a libel suit, the press report the news as if this Urupong protesters, are genuine Thai people reaction with a non-political cause, and not a “Set-Up” politicized tool of Abhisit.

The problem of perhaps that fear, is that what analysis there is are skewed and what analysis of the future are mostly wrong and blocked. So is there any wonder, with all that skewed and wrong analysis, the Thai society at large, has always been held hostage by a sense of “brinkmanship” in the working, because many do not know the “Reality” of the situation. Fore example, can Abhisit muster the Thai society at large, not just its voter base, to the Urupong protest? And if the protest are just Abhisit’s people, how legitimate can the protest become with the wider society? All we get from the press, is angry people against Yingluck and Thaksin, protesting that could take Thailand to the brink.

So if we are free, to analyze the Urupong protesters, as to what it truly is, not skewed or blocked, what can we say about it?

The simple fact is, Abhisit Dems, for the past 20 years, have used “maneuvering” to come to power, because it can not win elections from an inability to be flexible to change with the changing times and mood of the Thai people. And thus, there is a Thai expression, that the Dems, particularly Abhisit, have always been waiting and setting up the situation for the “Orange to Fall into the Party’s Lap.” That means, for power of the Premiership of Thailand, to fall into its lap. One strategy to see that happen, has for years now, been to destabilize Thailand, or “Shaking the Tree” so that the orange will fall into its lap. And as for about 10 years now, that “Shaking of the Tree” by Abhisit’s Dems, has been to suppy its people to the various protest to topple Thaksin or Yingluck, disguised as legitimate Thai people un-happiness.

Many foreigners in Thailand also often wonder, like with most people realizing that as a fact of the situation with the Urupong protest, why is there still in all the press, some type of “Twisted Propaganda Lie” about what is going on. Like why not just call the Urupong protest to what it is, being Abhisit creation. Foreign press are not any better, but they also “Lie Point Black” about every protest in Thailand. For example, a year earlier, when Seh Aei held a mass protest against Yingluck, not a single one of the global press, from Reuters, to Bloomberg, to AFP, to AP, to DPA, to UPI and others, mentioned a simple fact, and that is Seh Ai, in his protest to topple Yingluck, was calling for the Thai military to stage a coup and to freeze Thailand for internal cleansing. But all of them, went reporting as if the Seh Ai protest, had some legitimate cause, playing up brinkmanship.

What is the current Urupong protest all about again, is simple.

The Urupong protest is about “Waiting for the Orange” to fall in their lap, and with the orange in their lap, if it happens, and like in a pool table, to be the edge of the table, for the ball to bounce, and become an orange in Abhisit lap. What are the things that could “Shake the Tree” and force the orange into the Urupong lap, and ending up an orange in Abhisit’s lap, are several factors that could ignite the Thai people in theory, like the Cambodian and amnesty situation. But on the other side, a new breed Red Shirts leader, Nuling, told the New York Times, that the Thai people after so many years of political problems, fundamentally, are not in a “Shake the Tree” for the orange to fall mood.

19)

Thaksin vs Abhisit

Abhisit and the Democrat Party have lost every general election in about 20 years, long before Thaksin entered the scene. With that reality, the party has used maneuvering to become the government, with those maneuvering, taking all shape and form. Thaksin, meanwhile, have won every Thai general election has has been involved with.

The following is a transcript of the section on Thailand in Lee Kuan Yew‘s newly released book One Man’s View of the World:

THAILAND

AN UNDERCLASS STIRS

The arrival of Thaksin Shinawatra permanently changed Thai politics. Before he came onto the scene, the Bangkok establishment dominated all sides of the political competition and governed largely to the benefit of the nation’s capital. If there had been disagreements among the Bangkok elite, none were quite as ferocious as the ones to come. Nor were any of the quarrels as divisive as those that arose during and after Thaksin’s term. What Thaksin did was to upset the apple cart of the Thai political status quo by diverting to the poorer parts of the country resources that had previously been hogged by Bangkok and its middle and upper-class residents. Thaksin’s was a more inclusive brand of politics that allowed the peasants from the north and the northeast to share in the country’s economic growth. A gulf had already existed before his arrival, created by the Bangkok-centric policies of his predecessors. All he did was to awaken the people to the gulf — and the unfairness of it — and to offer policy solutions to bridge it. If he had not done so, I am convinced that somebody else would have come along to do the same.

When he took over the premiership in 2001, Thaksin was already a successful businessman and a billionaire. But if rich Thais were counting on him to show class solidarity, they would soon be sorely disappointed. He implemented policies that favoured the rural poor to an unprecedented extent. He extended loans to farmers, overseas scholarships to students from rural families and government —subsidised housing to the urban poor, many of whom had migrated to the cities in search of jobs and could only afford to live in slums. His healthcare plan targeted at those who could not pay for their own medical insurance provided coverage at just 30 baht (about US$1) per hospital visit.

To Thaksin’s opponents, he was turning the country upside down. They were not about to let him get away with it. They called him a populist and claimed his policies would bankrupt the state. (Remarkably, this did not stop them from continuing many of these policies and coming up with other similar ones when they held power from December 2008 to August 2011.) They accused him of corruption and favouring his family businesses, charges he denied. They were also unhappy with his firm — some say dictatorial — handling of the media and his controversial war on drugs in the south of the country, during which due process and human rights may sometimes have been overlooked. Nevertheless, the peasants, overwhelming in numbers, ignored the criticisms and re-elected him in 2005. The Bangkok elite ultimately could not tolerate the man. He was overthrown in a military coup in 2006.

Thailand’s capital has since experienced great upheaval. Scenes of chaos have broken out repeatedly on the streets of Bangkok since 2008, with mass protests involving either the Yellow Shirts, who oppose Thaksin and do so in the name of defending the monarchy, or the Red Shirts, made up of Thaksin’s ardent supporters. But the latest general election, held in 2011, which handed Thaksin’s sister Yingluck the premiership, was a clear vindication by the Thai electorate of the new path that Thaksin had chosen for Thailand. The peasants of the north and the northeast of the country, having tasted what it was like to have access to capital, were not going to give that up. Thaksin and his allies have now won five general elections in a row, in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011. For Thaksin’s opponents to try to hold back the tide is futile.

Despite the recent ferment in Thai society, there is cause for optimism in the long run. The Red Shirts will continue to outnumber the Yellow Shirts for a long time because the latter group draws from a shrinking constituency. The younger generation already holds a less reverent view ofthe royal family. Furthermore, even though King Bhumibol Adulyadej is a well-respected figure, much of the prestige and magic associated with him will go when he passes on.

The army has always played a central role in Thai politics. It has made sure that no movement against the monarchy, from which it derives its strength, is allowed to raise its head. It too, however, will have no choice but to accept and to adapt to the changed situation. It is after all untenable to resist the will of the electorate for a protracted period. Given time, its ranks will also be filled by soldiers from a younger generation, less enamoured with the monarchy. The military leaders will continue to insist on privileges and will not be content with being reduced to an ordinary army. But they will also learn to live with a government made up of Thaksin’s allies. It may even be possible for the army to accept Thaksin’s eventual return to Thailand, if he can promise to get along with them and not pursue any vendettas.

There can be no reverting to Thailand’s old politics, to the pre-Thaksin era when the Bangkok elite had a monopoly on power. Thailand will continue moving along the path that Thaksin first steered the country onto. The gap in living standards across the country will narrow. Many peasants will be lifted into the middle class and will help drive the country’s domestic consumption. Thailand will do well.

Continuing on the usual attack on Thaksin and Yingluck, Reuters reports with the headline “Thailand‘s boom: To the northeast, the spoils.”

What Reuters means if of course, Thailand’s northest region, called, Issan Region, is Thaksin strong-hold, and thus Thaksin and Yingluck, went to focus on the regions development. What that implies, is of course, an un-fair Thaksin and Yingluck to the rest of Thailand. And when considering how many times, Reuters and the likes of Bangkok Post, have said Thaksin and Yingluck have bought vote of the Thai people, through its populous policies, this is nothing new in their attack, to show that Thaksin and Yingluck have “Bought Vote.”

This time, Reuters imply, that Thaksin and Yingluck have “Bought Votes” of the entire region of Issan.

According to several reports, economic growth in Issan Region climbed 40% from 2007 to 2011, against 23% for the country and just 17% for greater Bangkok. Monthly household income also rose 40% between 2007 and 2011. And in 2012 investment rose 50%. Thaksin was of course, Thailand’s PM from about 2002 to 2006. Then after that there was the 2006 coup government and then the Abhisit government. So from 2007 to 2011, a big chunk of that was non Thakains government.

While mainstream press, such Reuters and Bangkok Post, points to Thaksin’s and Yingluck’s populous policy, as having bought the Issan Region’s people, pumping in funds and policies that have benefited the region, there is no denying the fact, that other regions of Thailand also benefited from the populous policies.

Notrhern Thailand, the Central Plains and Southern Thailand also registered strong growth in the past 5 to 10 years, since Thaksin came to power in Thailand. There was not a single policy of Thaksin that specifically targeted the Issan region, for development. Even the high-speed train, will connect other regions of Thailand.

(Up-Dated) A coup had occurred, by Prayuth. The coup came after a combination of Suthep, former security chief of Abhisit lead protest and judicialization, remdered the Yingluck government not able to function. That un-able to function, coupled with opposing protest, from Suthep and the Reds, lead army chief to attempt to broker a deal, but he failed, and as a result took control. Sunsequent news from Suthep, says he an Prayuth have been working together to topple Yingluck. Prayuth deny the charges. Many of the Yingluck program, such as rice scheme and high-speed rail, were canceled.

(Up-Dated) Suthep said, he an Prayuth, have been working together, to destabilize Thailand, for the setting up of a coup, for a Thailand under a Dictatorship.

1)

Village Fund and Entrepreneurship

But is Issan growth all about Thaksin’s populous policies, like the village fund?

When Thaksin introduced his “Village Fund” the elite establishment of Bangkok were out-raged, very much along the same line the Yingluck’s rice scheme has out-rage them. TRDI for example, said the village fund has gone mostly to the poor borrowing to buy Thakain’s mobile phone.

From about 2004 to 2009 I was the project manager at a resort in Issan, and saw differently. I went to many of the so called borrowing event, and most of them, was for “Entreprenural Type Projects.”

In fact, I lost many workers who went borrowing the fund to start entrepreneurial projects such as “Fish Ponds,” “Restaurant” and even “Cookie Making.” In fact, my Issan girlfriend, who worked as the resort restaurant manager and making a good living, resigned her post, and opened up a small laundry, with five other people, and began to offer laundry service to many of the smaller resort in the area.

The fact is, Thaksin’s Village Fund was the first “Micro-Financing” the region has ever seen, and it was available throughout Thailand. Do micro-financing work? There are many arguments, both saying that micro-financing works and also that they do not work. But the fact is clear, since about 2003, micro-finance was available, and the “Power of Entrepreneur” of the Issan Region, was ignited.

But is that all to it, the ignition of the “Entrepreneur Power?”

The village fund program was launched in 2001 upon a government policy aiming at both village and urban communities starting up with the provision of 1 million baht to everyone of 70,865 villages and about 4,000 urban communities (National Village and Urban Community Fund Office, 2010). The policy objective of setting up the village and urban community funds was (1) to be a working capital for the career development fund then people can have better job opportunities, more income and low expenses or to reinforce people welfare (2) to be a working capital for any argent matters (3) to save money for members and provide capital earned from other funds (4) to provide loans for other villages in order to strengthen its economy (5) related to any other matters that aim to develop life quality or welfare of village fund members or to strengthen the economy or society according to the regulations defined by the committee (Sutthinooy, 2007).

Previous studies concerning village funds showed the strength of this policy that is people became able to create more jobs and earn more income as well as be able to exchange knowledge about administration. This strengthened the communities. In contrast, the weaknesses were that the people had higher debts and misspent the borrowing. Also, the board of the fund administration made mistakes because they misunderstood the regulations, corrupted, and lacked the knowledge in the accounting system and financial reports which were complicated.

National Village and Urban Community Fund Office has a clear development plan to upgrade village fund into community financial institution with an aim to develop a standard and quality capital management system which can strengthen the community economy.

2)

What Reuters say?

Reuters Report:

Thailand’s boom: To the northeast, the spoils

By Paul Carsten and Pairat Temphairojana

UDON THANI, Thailand | Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:16am BST

The malls, factories and construction sites in Thailand’s northeast are emerging alongside its farms as a potent economic fuel in one of Asia’s top emerging markets. Growth in Thailand, Southeast Asia’s second-biggest economy, has begun to slow, but the economy of the northeast is in the grip of a boom.

The economic renaissance of “Isaan“, Thailand’s poorest and most populous region, has coincided with expansionary policies – from wage increases to farm subsidies – that are enriching an area at the heart of a “red shirt” protest movement that backed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra in a 2011 election.

The potential may never be realised if a crucial 2.2 trillion baht ($71 billion) infrastructure programme becomes a casualty of the feuding between Yingluck’s ruling Puea Thai Party and its opponents.

But if the plan went ahead, as is generally expected, it would change the entire economic structure of the northeast, said Rahul Bajoria, an economist at Barclays Capital.

“It’s the next entry point for investors and consumers – if they link it up to China, it becomes the entry point to Thailand, not Bangkok,” he said.

“But it’s been difficult for the bureaucracy to execute programmes because they don’t know who will be in power in a year or two.”

Economic growth in the region reached 40 percent from 2007 to 2011, against 23 percent for the country and just 17 percent for greater Bangkok.

For the Issan region, monthly household income rose 40 percent between 2007 and 2011, the biggest jump of any Thai region. Interviews with businessmen and investment data suggest the trend is continuing.

The number of private investment projects in the northeast rose 49 percent in 2012 from the previous year, with the total amount invested more than doubling to $2.3 billion, according to the Bank of Thailand. Much of it is concentrated in property – from high-rise condominiums to town houses and shopping plazas.

“The northeast has a large population, a dense population, so the income is big,” said Naris Cheyklin, chief financial officer of Central Pattana Pcl CPN.BK, referring to the one-third of Thailand’s 68 million people who live there.

In April, Central Pattana opened a 2.75 billion baht ($88.7 million) mall in Ubon Ratchathani, near the southern tip of Laos, their third in the region.

POLITICALLY DRIVEN BOOM

Politics explains part of what is going on.

Yingluck’s government brought in a nationwide minimum wage of 300 baht ($10) a day in January. In some Isaan provinces, that was an increase of 35 percent, among the biggest gains in the country, on top of a nationwide 40 percent rise in April 2012.

Many workers, such as those building the 168 Platinum Mall in Udon Thani, are happy to return to the northeast for wages that are now on a par with Bangkok’s.

Isaan’s “red shirts” are among the staunchest supporters of Yingluck’s brother, former prime ministerThaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a 2006 coup but influences policy from self-imposed exile in Dubai.

While in power from 2001, his populist policies – from virtually free healthcare to low-interest loans to the rural poor – made him a hero in Isaan.

The red shirts formed the core of a movement that paralysed Bangkok in April-May 2010 in protest at the government of then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the forces that ousted Thaksin – the traditional Bangkok elite including top generals, royal advisers, business leaders and old-money families.

Those protests were put down with force, but the red shirts got their revenge in the 2011 election and now see the rewards.

“A lot of the boom is upcountry, and that is politically driven, partly, because that’s where Thaksin’s supporters are,” said Wood at CLSA.

The poverty rate in Thailand fell to 13 percent of the population in 2011 from 58 percent in 1990, according to the World Bank, but per capita gross domestic product in Isaan in 2011 was still less than an eighth of that of Bangkok at $1,600 a year, according to the state planning agency, the NESDB.

That is changing. Government policies have pushed up purchasing power by subsidising agricultural products such as rice, tapioca and rubber. Under Yingluck’s government, farmers have been paid 15,000 baht per tonne of unmilled rice, a 50 percent premium over market prices, according to exporters.

“During the Thaksin and Yingluck era, a lot has been given to Isaan, and the amount of money being poured into the region is significantly more than previous governments spent,” said Ittiphol Treewatanasuwan, mayor of Udon Thani, once a U.S. Air Force base for anti-communist operations in Southeast Asia.

Lives are being transformed. Panjaporn Phatanapitoon, general manager of the 168 Platinum Mall, said people in the northeast were now better educated, attitudes were evolving fast and urbanisation would come much more quickly than in Bangkok.

REGIONAL INVESTMENT

The 2006 coup that toppled Thaksin caused years of unrest, but political calm has returned since Yingluck’s election win.

“When we change the politicians, they change the policy. If there are more changes to these policies, it will damage the economy,” said Uthai Uthaisangsuk, a senior vice president at property developer Sansiri Pcl SIRI.BK.

Sansiri is developing two $127 million condominium projects in Khon Kaen, 240 miles (380 km) northeast of Bangkok, in 2013 and plans a third for $35 million in 2014.

“At least five years and then we’ll get something done,” Uthai said, highlighting the need for a high-speed train and further infrastructure.

Now such plans are in hand, given impetus by floods that devastated the industrial central region, near Bangkok, in late 2011.

“Logistics providers and consumer products are moving upcountry because of the floods,” said Patan Somburanasin, general manager of TPARK, a logistics company and subsidiary of TICON Industrial Connection Pcl TICON.BK, which is investing up to 2 billion baht in a 79-acre logistics park in the northeastern city of Khon Kaen.

Isaan should also profit as factories and distribution centres move in ahead of an EU-style ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) planned by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) from late 2015 or 2016.

The AEC’s East-West corridor, a motorway and infrastructure route for trade, will stretch from Vietnam’s Danang port through Laos, Thailand and Myanmar to the Andaman Sea, cutting through the centre of the northeast and its commercial hub of Khon Kaen.

That will support Thailand’s ambitions to position itself as a gateway to China via road and rail links through Laos, itself seeing dramatic economic change.

The infrastructure programme and the urbanisation it will foster, if the plan goes ahead, will support Thai growth into the future, Credit Suisse said in a report, raising its estimate of trend GDP growth in 2014 to 2018 to between 4.5 and 5.0 percent from 4.2 percent.

“If you look at all the corporates, every single large cap out there, they don’t talk about Bangkok any more. They talk about provincials,” said Patrick Chang, head of ASEAN equity for BNP Paribas Investment Partners. “The sexy stuff is the provincial urbanisation and the way it impacts consumption.” ($1 = 31 baht)

What other factors have propelled Issan Region to rake in a growth, again, of some 40% since 2007? What are the information that the likes of Reuters and Bangkok Post are not reporting?

There are about four factors to consider on the Issan Region growth that has nothing to do with Thaksin. They are tourism, regional trade, Issan people’s regional and global hard work ethics, and the fact that Issan’s is “Coming From” the bottom of the pile in Thailand’s economic base, being the region is the least develop region of Thailand.

4)

Tourism:

First on tourism, tourism is big business in Issan. The region has a unique culture heritage, very different from other region. Is there any question that for the past four to five years Issan mountainous region, such as Khao Yai National Park, only hours away from Bangkok, has boomed massively? Then Laos and Cambodia has emerged as a major tourism destination, and both those countries, are right smack next to the Issan Region. Many tour operators now simply mix the Issan region tourist attraction, with those in Laos or Cambodia and offer them, as a package. Because of Laos and Cambodia, the interest in the Issan region tourism, has increased massively.

5)

Regional Trade:

That tourism, plays into the concept of “Regional Trade” where Issan has become the shopping destination for many, such as shoppers from Laos and Cambodia to the region, and also to the people of Bangkok going to the Issan Region to shop at the border markets. The bottom line fact is Laos and Cambodian economies are booming, benefitting the Issan Region. Then there is the link of the Issan region, to Vietnam and China, planned for decades with little to do with Thaksin or Yingluck.

Let’s look at only Laos and not even Cambodia.

Laos, a small land-locked country, is now rapidly becoming a regional linking hub between its larger neighbors. After years of isolation, Laos is opening up with now around 12 international border crossings and three bridges (and soon four) over the mighty Mekong River.

The importance of Laos’ opening is confirmed by the central position it occupies in the Asian Highway Network (AH) project, sponsored by UNESCAP and largely funded by the Asian Development Bank. The 141 000 kilometer-long road network crossing 32 countries aims at interlinking the Asian continent.

Regionally, of all Greater Mekong sub-region countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and China’s Yunnan province), Laos has the greatest planned AH density of all, both in regard of its territory and its population. It also has the largest AH network for the number of cars owned by its population. It thus becomes evident that those highways aren’t built for Laos’ internal traffic, but rather for transforming the country into a land-bridge in a larger regional road network that will eventually link China to Singapore and Vietnam to India.

What it means for China, Thailand and Vietnam

For all three countries, passage by Laos is a way to bring the economic growth from which are already benefiting their centers, to their peripheries. For China, it means its inner provinces far from the coast who could benefit from more trade and exchanges with Southeast Asia. For Thailand, it means its Issan region in the Northeast, bordering Laos that lags behind in terms of access to prosperity that could benefit by being linked to Vietnam or China. Finally, in Vietnam, while the North and South have known high levels of economic development, the Center has been a lot slower to launch, thus the relevance of integrating with Northeastern Thailand and beyond via Laos.

The three countries have invested a lot in road infrastructure in Laos, and China more than any other. With the integration of Laos into the ASEAN free trade area in 2008 and the coming free trade agreement between ASEAN and China, the timing of the completion of these roads is perfect.

6)

Quality of Region’s Workers

Isaan can refer to either the name of the Isaan people, their language or the northeast Thailand region. There are about 20 million Isaan people, most of them living in Northeast Thailand. The Isaan are known throughout Thailand as people who want to live life to the fullest. They are seen as a hardworking, hard playing, and hard luck people who have a sturdy sense of independence in spite of being looked down on by some from better off regions of the country.

Then what many forget is that many Thais of the Issan Region, work outside the region, all over Thailand, regionally and also globally, often as labor. These labors would typically work hard to save up funds, spending little, and then take the funds back to the Issan region. Is there any question that the Issan region people, who work away from the region as labor, are exposed to many cross cultural aspects and accepts work that many Thais do not accept anymore? And what do these Issan people do when their out of Issan work is done? They of course return to the Issan Region to settle down, bringing with them, a wide ranging experience and a hard-work ethic. How are these wide ranging experience and willing to work hard put to work? Well, this Issan population base becomes a fertile ground for business, meaning, well verse workforce that is willing to do hard work, that also have a high propensity to save.

7)

Flood Safe:

Then apart from tourism, regional trade, the people of Issan, there is also the flooding a few years back that is driving factories to the Issan Region, to escape the flooding potential. With better logistics and a work-force that is willing to work, and also being the gate-way to the MeKong area countries, Issan Region have become a major manufacturing center. This aspect has even less to do with Thaksin or Yingluck, but about geography and nature.

Withoon Kamonlnaruemet, the president of the Khon Kaen branch of the Federation of Thai Industries and a committee headed by Khon Kaen Governor Sombat Triwatsuwan plan to request a 50 million baht (US$1.6 million) appropriation to conduct a feasibility study and create the blueprints for Northeastern Thailand’s first industrial estate. “Khon Kaen has all the favorable conditions to attract investors here. We are a hub in the Northeast for logistics, education, and health care. And we have golf,” Mr. Withoon said.

“The probability is about 70%,” Mr. Withoon predicted. He attributes the high likelihood to the 2011 floods which severely disrupted production and brought billions of baht in damage to factories in Central Thailand. “Businessmen are not in a position to take on any more risk,” Mr. Withoon explained, “and the government hasn’t come forward with a short-term plan or a long-term plan to deal with the threat of flooding. So, an industrial estate in the Northeast is looking pretty good to investors.”

8)

From a Low Base:

The last aspect of why the Issan Region has performed exceeding well is that the region, for decades was known as Thailand’s poorest region. As a poorest region, the potential for growth is of course great, un-like regions that have grown and prospered, such as Bangkok area, and the potential has mostly been spent. To put it bluntly, the factors that came into place, being tourism, regionalism, and the people of Issan, have together, went to propel a back-ward region, to the rake in massive growth. This is just catching up with the Issan Region’s potential.

The economy of Issan is dominated by agriculture, although output is poor and this sector is decreasing in importance at the expense of trade and the service sector. Most of the population is poor and badly educated. Many labourers have been driven by poverty to seek work in other parts of Thailand or abroad. Although Issan accounts for around a third of Thailand’s population and a third of its area, it produces only 8.9% of GDP. Its economy grew at 6.2% per annum during the 1990s. Other sectors of the economy have been growing more quickly than agriculture, although this growth can be misleading. The number of factories grew from 1908 in 1975 to 44,000 in 1995, but 34,312 of these were rice mills. In 2000, 76% of factories in Issan were breweries or food or tobacco processors.

Issan’s economic disadvantages have caused great poverty. In 1995, 28% of the population was classed as below the poverty line, compared to just 7% in Central Thailand. In 2000, per capita income was just 26,317 baht, compared to 208,434 in Bangkok. Even within Issan, there is a rural/urban divide. In 1995, all of Thailand’s ten poorest provinces were in Issan, the poorest being Sisaket. However, most wealth and investment is concentrated in the four major cities of Khorat, Ubon, Udon and Khon Kaen. These four provinces account for 40% of the region’s population.

9)

Conclusion:

In sum, what can we say about the Issan region’s growth? Is Reuter’s right that Issan growth is just from “The Spoil” of Thaksin’s winning elections after elections in Thailand? How do we explain other regions of Thailand that also benefited from Thakain’s policies, but grew half as fast? Is there more to the situation?

How well off are Thai farmers? How well off are farmers in the Eurozone and USA? The fact is, Thai farmers are dirt-poor in comparison. How much is Thailand’s farm subsidy? And how much is the Eurozone and USA farm subsidy? The fact is, Thailand’s farm subsidy is a small fraction of Eurozone and USA’s farm subsidy, when taking consideration, the number of people involved.

So why has there been so much global out-raged over Thailand’s rice subsidy? Why has the press, like Reuters and WSJ continue to attack Yingluck’s rice policy?

Wikipedia defines Imperialism as “an unequal human and territorial relationship, usually in the form of an empire, based on ideas of superiority and practices of dominance, and involving the extension of authority and control of one state or people over another.” It is often considered in a negative light, as merely the exploitation of native people in order to enrich a small handful.

Thailand has a very long history of rice growing, and rice farmers are for centuries, are known as the “back-bone” of Thailand.

Even with a commodity product such as rice, to sell the rice, like most products, depend on product, price, place and promotion. In fact, as the globe talks about Thailand’s massive stock of un-sold rice, a great amount was sold and Thailand remained in the top three exporters of rice, pushing the sale of the higher price Thai rice, because of the rice subsidy scheme, to friendly markets and stressing quality. Also as a fact, Thailand’s prime minister, Yingluck, said her target was no the “Amount” but the price that Thailand would get on the rice. Yingluck, in answering the question in Parliament, asked by the opposition party, about the lost of the “Globe’s Largest Rice Exporting Position” by saying again, it was the price she was targeting, not the volume.

And as the globe began to attack the cost of the rice scheme, Yingluck said the scheme is part of an economic stimulus package of Thailand, as global economic condition is bearish. The fact is, some economist says the Yingluck spending on her rice subsidy, comes to only to a few percent of Thailand’s GDP of US$600 billion, while the added income in rice farmers hand, that went circulating in the economy, had about 5 times multiple, adding to the GDP.

However, Thailand is a politically divided country, with the elite establishment controlling much of what occurs in Thailand, including much of Thailand’s press. Even global press such as Reuters, with a track record of fiercely attacking Yingluck’s rice subsidy, has a long track record of being anti Yingluck and anti Thaksin, as its political coverage of Thailand, clearly indicates.

(Up-Dated 1) A coup had occurred, by Prayuth. The coup came after a combination of Suthep, former security chief of Abhisit lead protest and judicialization, rendered the Yingluck government not able to function. That un-able to function, coupled with opposing protest, from Suthep and the Reds, lead army chief to attempt to broker a deal, but he failed, and as a result took control. Sunsequent news from Suthep, says he an Prayuth have been working together to topple Yingluck. Prayuth deny the charges. The rice subsidy scheme has been stopped and corruption investigation, on the scheme has intensify.

(Up-Dated 2) Suthep said, he an Prayuth, have been working together, to destabilize Thailand, for the setting up of a coup, for a Thailand under a Dictatorship.

(Up-dated 3) Yingluck has been charged with “Failure to Stop Corruption” in the rice subsidy scheme, where the corruption, at this point, is “Alleged Corruption” by the anti-corruption agency, and Thailand’s Dictator Senate, is to start proceedings to “Impeach Yingluck.” Thailand’s anti-corruption agency, is called “Politicized” and rated “Boo” being among the worse in Asia, by the respected Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

Corruption charges has been bought on Yingluck, in that Yingluck did not stop the corruption that occurred under the scheme. This is a first, in the Thai justice system, that the Prime Minister, is charged for corruption, for not stopping corruption, that at this point, are alleged corruption. The coup people are doing a stock-check of rice, and thus far, mixed results, such as soldiers stealing rice and some lost rice stock, that in sum, thus far, does not amount to a significant level, in the overall picture.

The issue also gained wide-spread statements. from units such as World Bank and credit rating agencies. In sum, they said, there are economic benefits, such as lifting the income of the poor and stimulating the economy, but there are also costs, such as book-loss, associated with un-sold stock.

1)

A Politicized Rice Subsidy

If you have been following Thailand, you know that the elite establishment has lost every election to political parties allied to Yingluck and Thaksin. What you may not know, is that the elite establishment says it is because of Thaksin & Yingluck’s populous policy, and thus, Thaksin and Yingluck “Bought the Votes of the Thai people.”

Therefore, with that conviction, that Thaksin and Yingluck have “Bought Votes” the elite establishment, is against their populous policy. The rice scheme, is part of that populous policy. Therefore, the elite establishment and its press, being most of Thailand’s press, have went attacking the rice scheme.

But under Thaksin, populous policy was about 100% about humanitarian and targeted economic stimulus, being the universal health care and village fund. Under Yingluck, her populous is about 80% humanitarian and economic stimulus, being higher minimum wage and agriculture subsidy. The other about 20% of Yingluck populous policy, is pure populous policy, but the reason for this 20% is that in the last election, every party on every side, was rushing out with populous policy, and so there was competition, to increase populous policy in Thailand.

Today for example, Thai rath, a mostly anti-Thaksin newspaper in Thailand, reported a “Fake News” as its headline, that the USA is inspecting Thailand’s rice for quality. Where did the question on Thailand’s rice quality originated? The attack on Thailand’s rice quality originated on the social network, as a rumor, that the anti Yingluck internet users crowd started to spread.

There is not doubt, attacking the Yingluck’s rice scheme, is a political move by the elite establishment, to place a wage between Yingluck and her voters base, to scuttle her in the next general election, only two years away.

It should be noted, that in polls after polls, Thai business people says the greatest risk to Thailand is politics. The fact is, the elite establishment is against democracy, and prefer the “Thai Style democracy” that says democracy must be tamed and control, to give the so called “Good people” the opportunity to get rid of the “Evil” of Thailand, being Thaksin.

The problem is, also in polls after polls, about 70% to 80% of the Thai people said they want democracy, meaning not “Thai Style” democracy. That friction, between Thai Style democracy and democracy, is where the Thai “Political Risks” comes from. And clearly, Yingluck is a main proponent of democracy and is against the Thai Style democracy.

And it is her populous policy, that have proven popular with the voters, along with the Thai people conviction towards democracy. Arguably, her populous policies, have helped develop Thailand’s democracy, and thus lessened the political frictions in Thailand.

The well known to hate Thaksin and Yingluck, Nation newspaper reports:

Nation 6/26/2013

Rice scheme demonstrates populism’s dark side

Tulsathit Taptit

BANGKOK: — Anyone can spend himself into trouble. It’s one kind of trouble if it’s your own money, but it’s another if it’s the taxpayers’. And it’s bigger trouble still if all logic cries out for you to stop throwing tax cash all over the place, but you have to weigh that against the wants of the people who voted you into political office.

The government is being squeezed, trapped between its own ambitious election promise and its stubbornness to see it through. Just about every single person outside the ruling party’s circle warned that buying a virtually unlimited amount of rice from farmers at Bt15,000 a tonne was a surefire way to commit budgetary suicide, but the government paid no attention. When something was purportedly being done for the poor, critics couldn’t do much except pray.

Even pro-government economists foresaw a disaster. They couldn’t look too scared, however, because not only was the prime minister nonchalant, but her big brother was firing on all cylinders in defence of the scheme. Thaksin Shinawatra told the world last September that the rice programme was so noble and economically beneficial that it should go on for several more years. The rest is history.

According to Thaksin, the rice scheme was providing economic gains three times its cost. No matter where his statistics came from, they have been overshadowed by the opposition’s more direct numbers. Money spent on buying overpriced rice from farmers, and processing and storing the produce, has dwarfed the income the programme has generated or will ever generate. Corruption is rampant. Huge amounts of rice have either disappeared or been left to rot, and Thailand has slipped behind Vietnam and India as the world’s biggest rice exporters.

To realise how desperate and clueless the government has become, one only had to watch a recent press conference chaired by Deputy Commerce Minister Nuttawut Saikua, a video clip of which has been circulating on the social media with a must-see tag. He was supposed to address key questions about the project, but answered none. “What have you been doing these past few days,” a reporter asked him and senior officials – who passed simple questions to one another like they were hot potatoes.

After months of trying to stand its ground, the government caved in a few days ago, cutting the guaranteed price per tonne to Bt12,000, and aid to each farmer’s family to Bt500,000. If that sounds reasonable, a vast number of Thai farmers do not think so.

Protests have taken place and are being planned, both by those opposed to the rice scheme and those benefiting or standing to benefit from it. “Courageous!” die-hard government supporters say. “Cowards!” scream farmers who have made financial arrangements with Bt15,000 per tonne in mind. “Told you so,” the initial critics of the scheme shrug.

It’s one thing to make a political U-turn when a project starts to go wrong, but it’s another to backpedal when all previous warnings that went absolutely unheeded are coming to a head. The “courageous” compliment also flies in the face of real legal dangers that the government is facing. The enormous cost of the rice scheme threatens to jeopardise the government’s budgetary mandate and complicate investment in other essential plans.

The government apparently feels that it has backtracked enough, while others believe that the rice scheme is only halfway down the slippery slope. The situation, therefore, is very tricky. Opponents think the government’s attempts to control the damage are far from sufficient, while affected farmers think the government has done too much. The government’s preferred choice is to stay precariously sandwiched, at least for the moment.

This is the problem with populism. Once it’s let loose, it can barely be reined in. Populism-oriented governments collapse not just because of financial strain of their own making, but also because of the resentment of those who have been made irreversibly dependent on the state and who can’t accept an about-face. Welfare is easy to give, but very difficult to take back.

What should the government do? A lot. For starters, it must accept that “You produce, we buy unconditionally” is a ludicrous economic concept. It’s as ridiculous as the tenacious refusal to let banks fail in the United States. Only there, they won’t allow the rich to fold, but here the poor are perceived as being the source of political power. Yes, politics is the art of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and making the wrong reason seem right, but even in politics there are limits to how far you should go.

Unfortunately for the Yingluck administration, while there is a lot it should do, there isn’t much in the “can do” department. Losing face is arguably the least of its worries, though. The rice scheme and its failure have become intertwined with the political divide. Politicians give because they want to take, and in this case the prospective takers may have too much at stake to just drop it.

2)

Pork and Barrel Politics & Populous Policy Globe Over

While the likes of Nation and Reuters runs repeated criticism that Yingluck’s populous policy, such as the rice scheme, is “Buying Votes” the fact is, globally, there are massive levels of “Pork and Barrel” politics, or the elected officials, using government funds to support this group or that group. In fact, while Thailand’s rice scheme is costing the Thai government, perhaps US$10 of billions, the Eurozone and USA’s “Farm Bills” dwarf Yingluck’s spending.

It is interesting that Thais, while criticizing Yingluck’s rice subsidy as buying votes, few Thais are looking outside of Thailand.

Reuters report Adis Israngkura Na Ayudhaya, dean of the School of Development and Economics at the National Institute of Development Administration, says the scheme was always politically rather than economically motivated. “The government is using taxpayers’ money to buy votes. It’s not the welfare of the farmers they care about. It’s something they promised the public, an electoral thing, so at the next election they can say to people they kept their word,” he said.

Unlike in Thailand, where PM Yingluck farm subsidy was criticized for buying votes, by most global press, such as USA’s Wall Street Journal & Bloomberg, and Reuters, they are all silence now, on the USA Democrat Party is now relying on a “Farm Bill” to remain the majority in 2014.

The Hill, a specialize press on the USA Congress reports in June of 2013

“The quest to keep their Senate majority became more complicated Monday with the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is expected to appoint a Republican, which meansDemocrats will likely have to battle a GOP incumbent to regain the seat. Agriculture is a major industry in Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas and North Carolina, four states that are huge GOP targets next year. Montana and South Dakota are open seats following the announced retirements of Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). Meanwhile, Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) are two of the chamber’s most vulnerable incumbents. Other rural states where Democrats face competitive races are Alaska, Louisiana, New Hampshire and West Virginia. Pryor and Hagan have listed the farm bill among their highest priorities and have urged colleagues to act on it. Passing a bipartisan farm bill will give Democrats in those states a strong argument to make on the campaign trail.”

Where is WSJ, Reuters and Bloomberg, that have treated Yingluck’s farm subsidy as evil incarnated?

Is pork and barrel politics right? is populous right? Right or wrong, the fact is, the likes of WSJ and Reuters, are hypocrites!

3)

Moody’s Rating on Thai Rice Scheme Gets 90% “Censored” in Thailand

Earlier in 2012, Finance Minister Kittirat Na Ranong, under intense pressure to review the rice scheme, argues that the rice policy will help the economy as it will boost consumer spending at a time when industry is suffering because of the global slowdown. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), in a June report on Thailand, agreed that the government’s various fiscal stimulus policies were opportune but it also said income redistribution schemes, especially the rice program, needed to be monitored and adapted if necessary to contain costs.

And indeed just months ago, Thai press “Massively Hyped Up” Moody’s statement that Thailand’s rice scheme will hurt Thailand’s credit rating. That Moody report based its facts, on what a Thai newspaper said. Perhaps, recognizing that most Thai press are “Simply Trash” Moody’s reversed its course, and said Thailand’s credit rating was not under threat.

The result? As Thai press “massively Hyped Up” the first Moody’s report, this “Moody’s Correction” was about 90% “Censored” in Thailand.

About 90% of Thai press, such as Bangkok Post, Nation and others, have “censor” the latest Moodys rating report on Thai rice scheme. After relying on a newspaper report, where in Thailand newspapers like Bangkok Post, the Nation, Krungthep Turakil and a string of other hate Yingluck press, are well-known as mostly “Politicized Trash” for making a credit rating call, Moodys made a correction, and said:

Thailand’s credit rating is not under threat from the rice subsidy scheme. Thailand‘s credit rating is not in danger of being downgraded because of its rice intervention scheme, rating agency Moody’s said on Thursday. ”The rating is not under threat. If you look at the credit analysis that we published in late April, there are a lot of factors that support the rating at the current level of Baa1, and that’s also why we have a stable outlook,” Moody’s sovereign risk analyst Steffen Dyck told Reuters. Moody’s Baa1 rating is at the lower to medium end of the investment-grade scale. Dyck described Thailand’s public finances as “comparatively strong” when set beside those of countries with a similar rating and said its economic growth outlook was “relatively robust”.

4)

Yingluck & Market Distortion

While in Thailand, about 80% to 90% of the anti Yingluck’s rice scheme, is about trying to win the next election by stopping populous policy, many foreigners that are against Yingluck’s rice subsidy just simply, because they are “Market Force Champions.”

The fact is, despite the Thai Rice Exporters Association, that have spearheaded the attack on Yingluck, being a “Monopoly” of about five firms, widely known in Thailand as the “Five Tigers” Yingluck’s rice scheme has greatly distort market mechanism. The global rice trade and price, from being mostly under control of that “Five Tigers” of Thailand, was now in the hands of the Thai government.

Yet, many business people, who are realist and wise about global issues, say there is no such a thing as “Free Market.” The closest are the stock and currency markets globally. And in fact, in Thailand, many even argue, that there is a “Banking Monopoly” and a “Chicken Monopoly” for example.

Why has these clearly “Monopolies and Oligopolies” such as banking and chicken not attack, such as Yingluck’s rice scheme, as distorting market force? Clearly, there is no “Political Angle” to attack such things as Thailand’s banking monopoly.

Even globally, Eurozone and USA “Massive” farm subsidy “Distort The Free Market.” In fact, in the USA, the USA government pays farmers “Not to Produce Food” to keep the price high.

Channel News Asia reports:

Sept 7, 2012

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia: Agricultural subsidies around the world are a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars and unaffordable in the wake of the global financial crisis, New Zealand’s prime minister said on Friday. Speaking at a business forum in Vladivostok ahead of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ summit, John Key said cutting farming subsidies — which New Zealand eliminated in the 1980s — would promote economic growth. “Imagine the benefits of freeing up the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies which are poured into agriculture, fisheries and a number of other industries,” Key said. “With Japan, the United States, and the European Union all facing huge challenges to reduce their fiscal deficits and get public sector debt under control, what is plainly evident is that this level of subsidisation is no longer affordable or sustainable.” Key pointed to the example of New Zealand, which he said had the only “truly unsubsidised agricultural sector in the world”. “Unwinding subsidies is not easy, we in New Zealand know that from our own experience,” he said. “(But) farmers responded very quickly to the signals, they cut costs, they improved productivity, and they responded to market demand.” He said his country’s agriculture and wine sectors now had “arguably the best yields and highest productivity” in the world.

5)

Thailand’s Rice Competitiveness Matrix & Transparency

Lets forget about Yingluck’s rice subsidy, and talk about a typical businessperson and his product. Would not a business person want to have control over the product, like its price and image, and also other such as place and promotion? But what if that business person’s product is being attacked? Lets look at a product such as semi-conductors, very much a commodity but there is also quality differentiation. What if the press attacked, on a continuous basis, that there is an oversupply of semi-conductors? Would the price fall? What if a businessperson, sees his product quality, attacked on a continuous basis, as being out-dated? Would that affect the product in the market place?

What if much of the press attack, is “Rumor, Speculation and Fake News?”

Since coming to power about 2 years ago, and launched her rice subsidy, Yingluck was attacked on a continuous basis. There are literally, 100s of reports, many from the like of Reuters, that says vast amount of rice are being held un-sold in Thailand, and the stock-pile is so large, Thailand was running out of places to store un-sold rice.

The problem is, such information as Thailand’s rice stock, is kept secret for a good reason, and that is, the stock level would impact global market price of rice. Clearly, the like of Reuters, is basing its report on speculation, not fact.

But reports that Thailand is holding vast amounts of rice, have flooded the market for years, since the rice subsidy was started. And now, again, even Thai newspaper Thai Rath, reported today in the head-line as the big news of the day, that USA was worried about the quality of Thai rice.

In sum, the sheer amount of “Fake, Speculative and Rumor News” on the Thai rice is massive. Many argue Yingluck’s minister managed the rice subsidy badly, but others argue, it was the press that severely hurt the scheme.

Also, many neutral observers have noted that for some reason, global press has been hotly against Yingluck’s rice scheme, and has been on a mission to destroy the scheme. The attack is spearheaded by the likes of WSJ & Reuters, along with the local hate Yingluck press such as Bangkok Post.

Here is an example of what Reuters reported:

March 28, 2013

SUPHAN BURI, THAILAND — Thailand is set to sell 500,000 metric tons of rice on world markets at a loss as it scrambles to offload a record stockpile deteriorating in warehouses filled with grain bought under a government program.

The result, of such Reuters report, is that Thailand’s rice scheme competitiveness matrix, in the market place has been destroyed, ane Yingluck has accepted the fact, as the latest is that Yingluck has lowered the subsidy level.

And indeed, for a long time, much of the information on the Yingluck rice scheme has been kept a secret. Yingluck’s government has cited, “Competitiveness in the Market Place” as the reason to keep the rice scheme information, mostly a secret. Yingluck is correct here, that in normal business practice, information that could impact the price of a product, in the market place, are kept secret by most firms, as most businesses attempt to have control over the product, such as pricing. However, as the information is kept secret, there is a risk, such as the risk Moody’s created in using newspaper report for information.

In the Moody’s case, such a lack of transparency has cause an alarm on credit rating. Moody’s original assertion and its credit rating move before it reversed its position, in fact, is Moody’s in-directly demanding, to Thailand’s state secret. That information, on Thailand state secret, will be available to all Moody’s customers. The rice scheme competitiveness profile will be destroyed. Since then, Yingluck have talked about “Transparency” to her rice scheme.

6)

Press Playing God Over Thailand

While many, said the press such as Reuters attack of Yingluck’s rice scheme is about Reuters supporting the elite establishment, as its political coverage of Thailand shows, many says Reuters is just doing its job. That argument could be correct. But Reuters went much further, and took an “Active” and “Direct” role, far beyond appropriate journalism, in attacking the Yingluck’s rice subsidy.

Reuters report:

11/28/2012

The US has asked Thailand to respond to the WTO’s agriculture committee on Nov 14, according to an advance copy of questions seen by Reuters. The United States will challenge Thailand over rice subsidies at a World Trade Organisation (WTO) committee meeting next week, fearful that a government-sponsored crop could land up on the world market and depress prices, hurting US exporters. But Thai authorities are not worried by the move, saying agricultural subsidies have not violated WTO regulations. The government’s rice-pledging scheme, under which rice is purchased from farmers at above market prices, is expected to raise output, but has also been blamed for a slump in rice exports. Thailand now risks being dethroned as the world’s top rice exporter in favour of India or Vietnam. Thailand has said it is determined to remain the top exporter, causing the USA Rice Federation to worry that the rice stocks bought by the government will be released onto the world market at a loss. The US rice industry group has urged the US Trade Representative to take action against the Thai scheme, alleging that it acts as an export subsidy, which is prohibited by the WTO.

How did Reuters get the questions from the USA government? Clearly, the USA government gave it to Reuters, and was using Reuters, to establish a negotiation position with Thailand, sending a signal, that Reuters is on the USA side of the question.

7)

Thai Rice farmers

One bottom line, that the likes of WSJ, Reuters and Bloomberg, along with the Thai elite establishment press never mentioned, is of course, what the Thai rice farmers think. In research and polls of the Thai rice farmers, they said, quote: “Income Up, Debt Down, and Purchasing Power Up.”

The question to ask, is there any differences between the farmers in Thailand, to the farmers in advance country, such as the Eurozone and USA? The answer, of course, is that the likes WSJ and Reuters, is “Imperialistic in Nature.”

How can anyone, with a global outlook, sit and criticize Thailand supporting its rice farmers, who are mostly poor, when Eurozone and USA farm subsidy, vastly larger than Thailand’s subsidy, that have made farmers there a wealthy occupation. The answer, is of course, what good “Imperialist” cares about the Thai rice farmers.

The likes of WSJ and Reuters will never get away with what it did in advance countries like USA and Eurozone, as it did in Thailand. If WSJ and Reuters covered the Farm Subsidy issue in those countries, and do not go talk with the farmers, but just produce 100% assault of Farm Subsidy as they did with Yingluck’s rice subsidy, they will be crucified.

When Thailand went bankrupt, there was a great deal of bad assets, in the US$ multi billions. IMF stepped in, and ordered the assets sold. Since then there have been a great deal of controversy. Even the pro-establishment TDRI, says the assest were sold at the wrong time and got too little return. Since then the “too little return” went to court for corruption. The court found those who were directly involved in the sales guilty, but of course, being part of the establishment, the court let them off with little punishment, even the damaged is in the US$ billions.

Then the DSI or Thai FBI stepped in, and found cause to levy charges on the Democrat Party leaders, like former Dems PM, Chuan for breaking rules, and then sent the case to the anti-corruption unit. The case sat there for years collecting dust. The Red Shirts recently, pressured the anti-corruption to proceed with the case, before expiration, as it is feared, the court will rule another case from the anti-corruption unit, on the Democrat Party, expired. Within days, of that pressure, the anti-corruption unit said Chuan is cleared from wrong doings.

Favoritism?

(Up-Dated) The anti-corruption unit have thrown the entire disposal of de-funct asset out, with a no grounds ruling and the courts have also thrown out the case, for parts of it that have made it to the courts.

1)

A local Thai neutral press, M-Thai, is calling for Thailand‘s anti-corruption body, to move forward with a corruption case involving the Democrat Party, caught in case that was frozened for years after the Thai DSI or FBI found the corruption.

The case, again found to have cause of corruption by the Thai FBI, will expire next year.

The amount of damage to Thailand in this Democrat Party case, is staggering, at around US$10 billion to US$20 billion.

M-Thai reports, that under the Democrat Party, after the financial melt-down of Thailand, saw assets from defunct firms being nationalized and auctioned off, with the final figure of the assets, fetching about quarter of its value.

Many Thai thus filed a complaint with the Thai FBI, that the process of selling off the assets, did not follow regulations, and offered the foreign buyer of the assets, a highly advantageous acquisition price.

The Thai FBI accepted the case.

It found that the disposal of the assets, broke about 10 regulations, and sent the case to the Thai Anti-Corruption Unit. The finding by the Thai FBI, is confirmed by the Attorney General Office for bankruptcy.

The Asian financial crisis was a period of financial crisis that gripped much of Asia beginning in July 1997, and raised fears of a worldwide economic meltdown due to financial contagion.

The crisis started in Thailand with the financial collapse of the Thai baht after the Thai government was forced to float the baht (due to lack of foreign currency to support its fixed exchange rate), cutting its peg to the U.S. dollar, after exhaustive efforts to support it in the face of a severe financial overextension that was in part real estate driven. At the time, Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt even before the collapse of its currency. As the crisis spread, most of Southeast Asia and Japan saw slumping currencies, devalued stock markets and other asset prices, and a precipitous rise in private debt.[1]

Though there has been general agreement on the existence of a crisis and its consequences, what is less clear are the causes of the crisis, as well as its scope and resolution. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the countries most affected by the crisis. Hong Kong, Malaysia, Laos and the Philippines were also hurt by the slump. The People’s Republic of China, Pakistan, India, Taiwan, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam were less affected, although all suffered from a loss of demand and confidence throughout the region.

Foreign debt-to-GDP ratios rose from 100% to 167% in the four large Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economies in 1993–96, then shot up beyond 180% during the worst of the crisis. In South Korea, the ratios rose from 13 to 21% and then as high as 40%, while the other northern newly industrialized countries fared much better. Only in Thailand and South Korea did debt service-to-exports ratios rise.[2]

Although most of the governments of Asia had seemingly sound fiscal policies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to initiate a $40 billion program to stabilize the currencies of South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia, economies particularly hard hit by the crisis. The efforts to stem a global economic crisis did little to stabilize the domestic situation in Indonesia, however. After 30 years in power, President Suharto was forced to step down on 21 May 1998 in the wake of widespread rioting that followed sharp price increases caused by a drastic devaluation of the rupiah. The effects of the crisis lingered through 1998. In 1998 the Philippines growth dropped to virtually zero. Only Singapore and Taiwan proved relatively insulated from the shock, but both suffered serious hits in passing, the former more so due to its size and geographical location between Malaysia and Indonesia. By 1999, however, analysts saw signs that the economies of Asia were beginning to recover.[3]

3)

The UN

The initial stages of Thailand’s financial system reform consisted of the suspension of 58 of 91 finance companies: 16 in June 1997 and another 42 in August that year. These suspensions and eventual closures were intended to clearly separate weak financial institutions from strong ones, in order to strengthen public confidence in the financial system. The Financial Sector Restructuring Authority (FRA) was set up to take care of the asset sale of these finance companies, while the FIDF has provided deposit guarantee. In December 1997, the FRA allowed two of the 58 suspended companies to resume their businesses and formally shut down the rest. In the case of banks, the Bank of Thailand had intervened in 5 commercial banks, cutting the number of banks in the system to 13. Three banks are now majority owned by foreign strategic partners and three others are to follow suit by the end of the year, with a combined 16% market share in loans, two will remain state-owned with 27 % market share, and only five in private hands with 57 % market share. Thai bankers are now wondering whether they should conduct business in English or in Thai at Thai Bankers’ Association luncheons and meetings!

The FRA and the Public Asset Management Corporation (PAMC) were charged with managing and disposing of the assets of the closed finance companies, totaling 860 billion baht (about USD 23 billion). As the previous speaker – Mr. Amaret Sila-On – mentioned, the FRA has played a crucial role in disposing off assets of these defunct finance companies. In addition to closing down weak financial institutions, the government has initiated several major consolidations among other banks and finance companies to strengthen their operations. Krung Thai Bank was merged with First Bangkok City Bank (FBCB) and Bangkok Bank of Commerce (BBC) in 1998. All the assets and liabilities of FBCB, and ‘good’ assets of BBC, were transferred to Krung Thai Bank, where the Financial Institutions Development Fund will compensate for the loss against impaired assets of FBCB using yield maintenance and gain/loss sharing scheme.

4)

TDRI

The FRA auctions yielded a disappointingly low recovery rate of only a quarter of the face value. The FRA defends itself by pointing to low or lower returns obtained on such asset sales from various asset disposal agencies in other countries. Be that as it may, the main problem with the FRA lay rather with the timing of these sales, rather than corruption or mismanagement. This arose from the Thai legal system, which was really not up to the task of enforcing loan contracts in a satisfactory manner. In the past, that had not mattered much, as growth would cover up the consequences of mis-investment and little recourse to the bankruptcy courts was needed. But it was becoming increasingly clear as time went on that this time around, the scale of the downturn would not be like anything seen before, and the duration will also be much longer.

Under the then current legal system, to enforce or foreclose on loan contracts would take a long time. Legal reform was therefore essential, and was soon put to the parliament, but a long battle would be fought over it (see below). Meanwhile, the FRA auctions were proceeding, with the bidders not yet clear whether there would be any reform and what form it would take. With such uncertainty heavy discounting was to be expected. Another feature of this solution to managing the bad financial assets was that the new creditors did not perform any banking functions. While some debtors were no doubt due to disappear from the scene in any case, many others could be nursed back to health, 24 given time and, above all working capital. It was clear that neither would be forthcoming from the bid winners. In reaction, government policies toward bad loans in the next few years would be obsessed with the idea of keeping the loans in the hands of the original lenders for as long as possible.

5)

Damage from the financial crisis lingers today.

Bangkok Post: Bank of Thailand (BoT) governor Prasarn Trairatvorakul has opposed the cabinet’s decision to shift the responsibility for 1.14 trillion baht in debt stemming from the economic crisis in 1997 from the Finance Ministry to the central bank. Bank of Thailand governor Prasarn Trairatvorakul “Transferring the debt might affect the BoT’s work. “Moreover, this debt was not created by the BoT but stemmed from the government’s policy to use the central bank as a mechanism for addressing the problem,” Mr Prasarn said on Wednesday. He said the confidence of foreign investors would also be affected. “The BoT’s financial status is not as strong as the government understands it to be,” the governor said. The central bank currently has a negative equity of more than 400 billion baht and transferring the responsibility for the additional debt would add substantially to this, he added. The cabinet yesterday agreed to transfer responsibility to the BoT for 1.14 trillion baht in debt in a move to cut the government’s debt repayments by up to 70 billion baht per year and give the Finance Ministry greater leeway to undertake new borrowing to finance future investment programmes.

6)

Bangkok Post

Apr. 8 2002 An important chapter in Thailand’s economic history closed last week after the last of the 56 defunct finance companies was ordered into liquidation by the courts. It marked the beginning of the end for the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority, the quasi-public agency set up in 1997 to oversee the defunct finance companies and handle creditor claims. What was achieved? Through asset auctions and debt restructuring, the FRA was able to recover 35.3 percent of the 748 billion baht in assets under care for creditors. Another 120.8 billion baht in assets remained tied up in the courts.

7)

Inside the deal?

NYT

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., in conjunction with the GE Capital Corporation, has agreed to pay 23.6 billion baht, or $645 million, for about a third of the loans left over from Thailand’s unsuccessful auction last week of assets seized from defunct financial companies.

Goldman, Sachs (Asia) Finance will pay 21 percent of face value for several thousand loans, most backed by land and buildings, which it agreed to buy after private talks with Thailand’s Financial Sector Restructuring Authority, which is managing the liquidation.

Goldman was among the most active bidders at the auction on Tuesday of 13,000 loans, which have a total face value of 384 billion baht. But the restructuring authority rejected more than 90 percent of bids as being too low.

The unsuccessful auction last week came as Thailand struggles to recover from its deepest recession in three decades. Two-thirds of the country’s finance companies have been closed in the last year, most being those whose loans were put up for auction.

The liquidation is a condition of the $17 billion Thailand economic bailout program arranged in August 1997 by the International Monetary Fund.

Goldman, along with GE Capital, the financial services arm of the General Electric Company, agreed to drop any contracts made before the auction with original debtors seeking to buy back their loans at a steep discount, said Amaret Sila-On, the chairman of the restructuring authority. This avoids the appearance of collusion.

Goldman will also pay more if the recovery rate on the purchased loans reaches a certain level, which was not disclosed. Mr. Amaret said this profit-sharing arrangement was expected to increase the Government’s long-term return on the loans to 30 percent to 40 percent of face value.

Two closely held Thai companies also revised their offers and paid a combined 3.7 billion baht, or 26 percent of face value, for two other lots of loans.

Thailand is still stuck with three-fifths of the seized loans — with a face value of 223 billion baht — which it will repackage and auction again in February. A state agency, the Asset Management Corporation, will be ”the bidder of last resort” at that auction.

Thailand’s sales are being closely watched across the region as Malaysia, South Korea, China and Japan weigh similar programs. They also provide benchmarks for Thailand’s moribund real estate market.

The auction itself attracted 12 bidders, including Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Starwood Financial Trust and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. But the authority and the Finance Minister, Tarrin Nimmanahaeminda, rejected almost all bids as not meeting the unofficial floor price of 25 percent of face value. Mr. Tarrin said the Government would create incentives, mainly for local businesses, to attract higher offers.

Bids could also be better next time around because of the asset corporation’s participation, the minister said. The asset corporation was excluded from the earlier auction.

The Government’s target price for the rest of the assets is 40 percent of face value, the Finance Minister said.

8)

FRA members charged over sales:

At least five corporate entities and board members of the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority (FRA) are to be notified of charges against them over the post-crisis sale of the assets of 56 defunct finance companies, the Department of Special Investigation says.

The department concluded the FRA broke the law while selling off the assets seized from the 56 defunct finance companies.

It was investigating why the FRA did not separate good assets from bad assets. The selling of the assets in a pool was considered a major reason why Thailand received only Bt190 billion from the sale when the principal value was Bt851 billion.

It has also reviewed five more cases brought up by those affected by the asset sales. One of them involves Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, which bought assets with an outstanding value of Bt24.6 billion at a bid price of Bt11.5 billion.

Vit Jirapaet, director of the Bankruptcy Case Department, said the DSI had interrogated 106 individuals involved in the Lehman Brothers-related case, senior state officials and experts to find out if there were conflicts of interest and any intention to avoid taxes.

9)

Billions of damage off lightly?

Bangkok Post

Former FRA bosses given suspended prison terms

18/09/2012

The former chairman of the Financial Sector Restructuring Authority (FRA), Amaret Sila-On, and former FRA secretary-general Vicharat Vichitvadakan have received two-year jail sentences for malfeasance in the agency’s sale of assets from 56 defunct finance companies.

The jail terms, however, have been suspended for three years.

Amaret, the former commerce ministry in the Anand Panyarachun administration, said he would appeal against the verdict.

Public prosecutors indicted Amaret and Vicharat on September 2008. Vicharat is also the former president of the Stock Exchange of Thailand, Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, Lehman Brothers (Thailand), Global Thai Property Fund and property fund registrar One Asset Management Co.

Based on investigations by the Department of Special Investigation, Amaret and Vicharat were charged with assisting Lehman Brothers evade taxes on assets it purchased at the FRA auction in August 1998.

Lehman Brothers won auctions for 11.5 billion baht out of a total of 24.62 billion baht worth of corporate loans, putting up property as collateral on Aug 13, 1998.

Prosecutors said this could constitute a conflict of interest and lack of transparency as Lehman Brothers (Thailand) was appointed as an adviser to the FRA.

Lehman Brothers Holding Inc was required to seal the deal within seven days, or by Aug 20, 1998, together with an initial payment of 20% of the purchased assets value, or 2.3 billion baht. The company would also have been subject to tax if it had signed the deal.

However, the US investment banking firm failed to sign the deal, only placing a 10-million-baht pledge for the purchase.

Instead, the company set up the Global Thai Property Fund to enter into an agreement with the FRA on behalf of Lehman Brothers, thanks to a regulation issued earlier by the FRA, under the guidance of its adviser, Lehman Brothers (Thailand).

The court said this could be considered as an attempt to evade taxes via the property fund, which would be tax-exempt by law.

The prosecutors accused Amaret and Vicharat of negligence and malfeasance by allowing Lehman Brothers to set up the property fund to enter an agreement with the FRA.

The Criminal Court said Amaret and Vicharat were guilty of failing to collect the 2.3-billion-baht initial payment from Lehman Brothers Holding and allowing the US company to set up the property fund to enter the agreement on behalf of it, which the court views as an act that favoured the US firm and caused damage to the FRA.

The court sentenced the defendants to two years in prison and fined them 20,000 baht each. The jail sentence is suspended for three years, in consideration of the defendants’ ages. Amaret is 79 years old and Vicharat is 65.

10)

Anti-corruption unit inner workings?

Thai Intelligence News

The Thai anti-corruption unit, long known with the “In-Crowd” in Thailand, as being part of the Elite establishment rule of Thailand, is going where no anti corruption units globally have gone before, and is now advertising its “Corrupt Nature” in plain sight.

Recently, the unit came out to say Yingluck‘s rice scheme and others have the potential to cause corruption and threat Yingluck of cases of corruption on them, even before real corruption took place. Then after that, as Yingluck appointment of Thailand’s top spy was ruled wrong by the administrative court, the unit came out to advise Tawil, to his legal recourse at the unit, even before anyone lodge the case with the unit, and as Yingluck may appeal the decision at higher courts. Then right after that, as a case against Abhisit Dems, related to the sales of defunct asset, have sat collecting dust at the unit for years, got pressured on the unit to proceed with the case, local press reports the unit just came out to say the Dems leader, Chuan, whose government handled the asset sales, that Chuan is cleared from wrong doings. The damage, is in the US$ billions. Then the latest, as police is still investigating the details of a luxury car import scam, potentially linked to a Yingluck minister son, now the press say the unit is on the case.

The Thai anti-corruption unit is a colorful comical bunch, most neutral analyst says, with a long line of linkages to the 2006 coup government, that saw Thaksin as the evil man to get rid of, and the coup set the mandate for the anti-corruption unit, to go after Thaksin corruption. Even Transparency International findings, that Thaksin is less corrupt than the 2006 coup government or the military installed Abhisit government, did not see the unit go after the 2006 coup government or Abhisit. In fact, for example, some former unit people, who left the unit, is making a career out of attacking the Yingluck government, like Kaewsan, and the 2006 Coup government Prime Minister, well known corruption, in massive encroachment of a mountain that is part of a national Forest reserve, to build a resort, escape the unit prosecution for accountability. Even several well known corruption case by Abhisit government, such the vocational school equipment scandal and the police station scandal, in the billions, have thus far see the unit making little statement on them.

How can such a unit with such a behavior exists in Thailand, in these day and age? How can anyone, who dislike corruption, accepts the units workings? Well, after every coup in Thailand by the Elite establishment, have saw subsequent moves by the in power, to accused the ousted government as being corrupt, as a rationale for the coup, as a way to legitimize the power grab, which is an action of ultimate corruption. So the Thai people, many of them, cannot face the real facts, but hide behind a mask of faulting others unjustly of corruption, so as to rationalize their philosophical position.

Until the Thais stop this childish political play, of “Politicizing Corruption” such as being exhibited by the anti corruption unit, corruption will never disappear, or lessen, from Thailand. And this can partially explain why, in poll after poll in Thailand, say the Thai people, can accept corruption, as there is clearly a “Double Standard” that everyone can see and have come to accept corruption “As A Game.”

I heard a story, about how a billionaire foreign educated Thai, in his 70s, who has friends and net-work all over Thailand, from high to low, who lived in Thailand most of his life, never heard of lese majeste before. The story goes, one day, a newspaper wrote about it for the first time in 10s of years, and he saw it. He was in shocked, and said, quote: “They do that to people?” The funny thing to the story is, he is a staunch Royalist. Then one day, some one got sick, and the news was kept quiet. But there were rumors. One day, that same billionaire, heard from a friend what the illness was. And he said, quote: “I do not even know what happened, crazy.”

Interesting, what lese majeste can do to people’s mind!

(Up-Dated) Under Prayuth’s junta, massive numbers, at historical breaking level, of lese majeste cases are being levied on the Thais Leak documents from the junta, to which I can not confirm, says the junta sees people, who are calling for democracy in Thailand, as trying to topple the Thai monarchy.

(Up-Dated) Under Prayuth Dictatorship, the Nation reports, about 4,000 cases of lese majeste complaint, has been lodge by the Thais, with the police, by other Thais. Lese majeste cases, now, are also being handled by the military tribunal, passing very hard sentence.

Note: This report is a condense of the original posting, as last year, my internet activity was being observed by the MICT. And because the only potential offense was lese majeste, I have amended this report to cut out potential lese majeste content. My apology, but my family was very concerned and lese majeste crime in Thailand carries very long jail sentence.

1)

An Inconvienence Death

The Economist sums up Thailand’s lese majeste as, quote: “A sad story of bad law, absurd sentences and political expediency.” That is a frank assessment, but Thailand is not ready for it. Over the years, many Economist Magazine was ban in Thailand. And Freedom House, have even rated Thailand a “Not Free” country in the past, from all the censorship, mostly, related to lese majeste.

The Economist, wrote in May 12th 2012, about a famous lese majeste prisoner.

HIS only crime, allegedly, was to send four text messages to a government official about Thailand’s royal family. But they were deemed by a court to be offensive to the monarchy, and under the country’s strict and oppressive lèse-majesté laws Ampon Tangnoppakul was sentenced, in November, to 20 years in prison. The whole case, and especially the wildly inappropriate sentence, sparked an outcry, both in Thailand and abroad. Mr Ampon, a hitherto blameless and unrevolutionary 61-year-old, became known as “Uncle SMS”. He denied all charges, claiming that he did not even know how to send a text message.

On May 8th Mr Ampon died in a Bangkok prison hospital. He had been unwell, but the exact cause of his death has still to be determined. It has provoked renewed concern over the increasingly harsh application of the lèse-majesté laws, enshrined in Thailand’s criminal code and a newer Computer Crime Act. “Red shirt” activists, supporters of a former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was deposed in a coup engineered by royalist generals in 2006, protested and delivered funeral wreaths to the hospital.

Some red shirts also express growing frustration on this issue with the present government, headed by Mr Thaksin’s younger sister, Yingluck Shinawatra. Red shirts helped her Pheu Thai party to a landslide victory in a general election last July, and were hoping to see the new government tone down, or even repeal, the lèse-majesté laws.

After all, as they see it these laws in the past have been used mainly against Thaksin supporters for partisan political purposes, including to snuff out opposition to the coup against Mr Thaksin. Indeed, before 2006 the lèse-majesté laws were used sparingly. Since then, however, the number of convictions has shot up, and the sentences have got harsher. Critics argue that these laws are not only anachronistic, but also widely abused. Designed to prevent insults against the monarchy, they are now used to curb freedom of speech in general, and to prevent criticism even of the royal bureaucracy and the constitution.

2)

Anonymous

A great deal have been written about the ugliness of lese majeste law and usage in Thailand. But what is its historical context? How does it fit into the Thai society. What about Democratic Development? Anonymous has the answer!

By Anonymous

The battle lines are drawn, in the ongoing fight over Thailand’s grotesque lèse majesté laws. It’s “Western” democracy versus “Thai” culture. In contemporary political discourse, after all, ”culture” is just about the only word whose international currency rivals democracy’s. To be sure, culture commands more respect than the “dictatorship” and “oppression” it is frequently invoked to mask. As a justification for torture, murder, and the arbitrary imprisonment of political opponents, pseudo-cultural arguments are not only effective at home —where they can be tailored to fit just about any narrative about the imperative to protect traditional values from corrupting alien impositions. They also appeal to a sizable constituency of self-loathing Westerners whom third world dictators have somehow turned into their apologists — useful idiots persuaded not only that basic human rights are, indeed, “alienable” but also that championing the right of non-Western peoples to speak their minds or otherwise control their own destiny amounts to doing violence to their cultural heritage.

Whatever the outcome of this fight will be — the ultimate outcome is not in doubt, but it could go either way in the short run — framing the debate in these terms is counterproductive for everyone, on both sides of this fight, who loves the country, its people, and its institutions. Advocates of democracy are much too quick to defer to the brown-nosed apologists of the current regime on the true content of Thai culture. And the defenders of Thailand’s cultural heritage — those for whom cultural discourse is more than just a rhetorical strategy to legitimize an elite’s privileged access to political power — often betray a rather cartoonish view of both the “culture” they seek to defend as well as the alien cultures whose encroachments they so stalwartly oppose.

The key misunderstanding that plagues well-intentioned people on both sides of this pointless debate is that no “culture” is really specific enough to mandate a single regime type, a single form of government, or a single configuration of institutions. This, incidentally, is true of “Thai culture” as much as it is true of the miscellany of cultures crassly lumped together under the all-encompassing “Western” label. And, in the specific case, it is a gross oversimplification — in plain language, a lie — to say that restrictions on anyone’s ability to discuss basic political issues are any more ideally suited to Thailand’s cultural values than they would be to those of any country in the West.

Lest we forget, most places in Western Europe were ruled by more or less absolute monarchs for much longer than Thailand has been — not to mention much longer than they themselves have been “democratic.” Democratization not only constitutes a very recent development in countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece. As recently as four or five decades ago, it was rather common to suspect that democracy was destined to fail in countries distinguished by the “parochial” and “subject” political cultures prevalent in southern Europe. Participatory, pluralist institutions, it was thought, are unlikely to work properly in contexts where citizens are generally passive, uninvolved, and deferential to elites. Interestingly, these are more or less the same arguments made about Thailand’s supposed incompatibility with “Western” democracy.

Lest we forget, moreover, it’s in the country with arguably the proudest republican tradition in Europe — France — that the model of royal absolutism originates. Indeed, it is from French-style absolutism that King Chulalongkorn the Great borrowed heavily in his attempt to build the kind of modern state that Thailand still lacked as of the mid-nineteenth century. Is “republicanism” any more compatible with French culture than “royalism?” To be sure, few people would have argued as much in 1788. Yet, that’s exactly what France got in 1792. The fact is that “French culture” prescribes neither. French culture has given rise to, and has in turn been re-shaped by, both royalist and republican ideas.

Just as there is nothing especially “democratic” about Western culture, it could be argued that Thai culture is not quite as unfriendly to so-called “Western” democracy as it is often made out to be. In fact, there are at least three inconvenient facts that undermine the argument that the lèse majesté legislation is merely the legal expression of foundational, long-held values more integral to Thai culture than is the unfettered expression of political ideas.

First, it’s not really true that Thai culture is historically any more “undemocratic” than most “Western” cultures. It could be argued, as famous social critic Sulak Sivaraksa did twenty years ago, that Thai society came to embody the ideals of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” five hundred years before the French ever came up with that slogan. Way back in the thirteenth century, the people who lived in the kingdom of Sukhothai experienced levels of equality and freedom vastly superior to those most Europeans enjoyed at the time [UPDATE: Exactly how “free” they were is in dispute; see the exchanges in the comments below]. Consider this passage from the venerable Ramkhamhaeng inscription (dated 1292 CE). At a time when most Westerners lived as serfs — essentially the property of feudal overlords — King Ramkhamhaeng had these words inscribed on his throne:

In the time of King Ramkhamhaeng this land of Sukhothai is thriving. There is fish in the water and rice in the fields. The lord of this realm does not levy toll on his subjects for traveling the roads; they lead their cattle to trade or ride their horses to sell; whoever wants to trade in elephants, does so; whoever wants to trade in horses, does so; whoever wants to trade in silver or gold, does so. […] When commoners or men of rank differ and disagree, [the King] examines the case to get at the truth and settles it justly for them. He does not connive with thieves or favor concealers [of stolen goods]. When he sees someone’s rice he does not covet it; when he sees someone’s wealth he does not get angry. […] When he captures enemy warriors, he does not kill them or beat them. He has hung a bell in the opening of the gate over there: if any commoner in the land has a grievance which sickens his belly and gripes his heart, and which he wants to make known to his ruler and lord, it is easy: he goes and strikes the bell which the King has hung there; King Ramkhamhaeng, the ruler of the kingdom, hears the call; he goes and questions the man, examines the case, and decides it justly for him. So the people of this muang of Sukhothai praise him. [Translation in David K. Wyatt, Studies in Thai History, p. 54-55.]

The Ramkhamhaeng inscription contrasts sharply with contemporary accounts of life in medieval Europe as well as with the model of political and social organization that became dominant in Siam with the rise of Ayutthaya. It describes a strikingly egalitarian society where the king’s subjects were remarkably equal under the law and free to pursue economic activities of their own choosing. It describes a society ruled by an accessible king, one who is confident enough in his own position to routinely lower himself to the level of his subjects to adjudicate their disputes. The king is accorded praise and respect not simply qua inherently superior being, but because of what he does for his people. Historian David K. Wyatt suggests that King Ramkhamhaeng self-consciously defined the administration of the Tai kingdom of Sukhothai in contrast to the more hierarchical, more unequal, more obsessively ritualistic Khmer kingdoms ruled by self-styled “gods.” With the rise of Ayutthaya, however, it was the very Khmer practices Ramkhamhaeng looked upon as bastardizations of Tai culture —slavery, Brahmanism, sakdina, and devaraja rule — that ultimately won out. Incidentally, that’s in part the reason why fanatical nationalists in Thailand are obsessed with Khmer ruins like Phra Viharn (and even Angkor). After all, it is only by claiming ownership of Khmer traditions that they can avoid acknowledging the fact that some of the key organizing principles of modern Thai society are no less foreign than the Western “impositions” they so valiantly resist.

The second inconvenient truth is that no such thing as Thailand existed (whether as a political entity or even merely as an idea) as of two centuries ago. Not only is present-day Thailand essentially a negative construct — it includes contiguous territories in mainland Southeast Asia left over from French and British colonization. The rulers in Ayutthaya and then Bangkok never really controlled much beyond the Chaophraya basin and the country’s eastern seaboard prior to the nineteenth century. When they did come to control what is now Thailand’s north, south and vast sections of the outer northeast, it was not by plebiscite or popular insurrection that these territories gave their allegiance to the King of Siam. It was rather by conquest and skillful political maneuvering. Parts of northern Thailand, for instance, were essentially brought under Siamese control in exchange for bailing the Lanna rulers out of the debts they had incurred with European trading companies. As such, how much sense does it really make to speak of a single Thai culture? How can whatever Thai national identity the people of Udon Thani, Chiang Mai, and Nakhorn Si Thammarat share be understood without reference to the homogeneity enforced by the authorities in Bangkok through sustained propaganda and a good deal of violence — not to mention the most careless disregard for traditional local customs? And how really “natural,” “sacred,” or otherwise worthy of insulation from domestic debate (not to mention “foreign” ideas) should we presume that single, national identity to be?

Third, it has escaped many on both sides of this debate that lèse majesté legislation as it is currently interpreted and enforced is not something that has existed in Thailand from time immemorial. In fact, at least with respect to the monarchy, the Thai press was immeasurably more free a century ago than it is today. For much of their rule, King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) and King Prajadhipok (Rama VII) — whose job description, it should be noted, was “absolute” (not “constitutional”) monarch — were subjected to vicious criticism and sometimes pointed derision by the local press. And though repression was intermittently applied, the Thai journalists of the time could afford to be much more than the neutered bunch of sycophants they have now become. By contemporary standards — in an obscurantist time when restrained, somewhat apologetic articles in the Economist pass for mortal affronts — the cartoons and editorials routinely printed in the pages of early twentieth century Thai newspapers are genuinely shocking. Scott Barmé’s book Man, Woman, Bangkok provides an especially compelling illustration.

Once again, these considerations point to the conclusion that there is nothing especially “Thai” about lèse majesté. The legislation itself has little to do with Thai culture. In fact, Thai society had shown itself mature enough to tolerate, for decades prior to the more recent restrictions, open discussion of the monarchy. Lèse majesté is rather but a quintessentially modern instrument of repression that leaders like Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat instituted to stifle political debate about the very content of Thai cultural values and identity. It exists not to defend Thai culture, but to enforce the vulgar, comic-book version of Thainess the military and bureaucratic elites have produced and propagated to advance no cause greater than their own aggrandizement. In this sense, those in Thailand and abroad who defend lèse majesté legislation on cultural grounds would do well to read some Thai history before they accuse foreign observers of ignorance and Thai dissidents of apostasy.

Also lost in this idiotic juxtaposition of “Thai culture” and “Western democracy” is that, far from being incompatible, cultures (Thai or otherwise) need dissidents to survive. The practices, traditions, values, beliefs, and institutions typically associated with culture can only hope to endure through the kind of constant renewal which requires of a society the courage to come to terms with its history and the willingness to engage in discussions however unpleasant or divisive. John Stuart Mill famously argued that it is in the interest of any society (or culture) to protect the expression of ideas that a majority of the population might find revolting:

“If the opinion [of the minority] is right, they [the majority] are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth; if [the opinion of the minority is] wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit — the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill, On Liberty).

As Mill’s reasoning suggests, it’s only under the most stultifying of censorship regimes that slobbering retards like Thanong Khantong are paid to write opinion columns in major national publications.

3)

Bangkok Post:

Evolution, Not revolution

Bangkok Post, a far right wing extremist newspaper here in Thailand, propagates evolution, not revolution. Bangkok Post says progress is being made, but it will take time. Yet how many more Uncle SMS must there be? Is it fair and understandable, that many are out-raged by lese majeste?

The darker side of lese majeste:

Bangkok Post; 31 Mar 2013

Last Sunday in the article “The Brighter side of lese majeste”, we discussed how Thailand is changing. Social media and information technology allow us to obtain information and discuss ideas more openly than ever before.

While the lese majeste law won’t be reformed any time soon, Thai people are developing a consciousness, forming an opinion and making a stance _ and that is progress. However, if the end goal is to change Thai society so that it embraces the democratic principles of freedom and human rights, we’re going about it the wrong way.

We should set an example for constructive debate, framing the dialogue in the context of culture and history, not just ideology. But instead, in Facebook wars and face to face, even the most educated among us mindlessly sling mud and engage in one-upmanship. We show a lack of empathy and vainly presume that we are always correct and anyone with a differing opinion is absolutely wrong and ought to be ridiculed. The emotional commitment to our cause gets the better of our rational judgement.

Thai PBS’s Tob Jote political talk show, which featured a five-part series on the role of the monarchy, is a fine example of two intelligent, respectful individuals engaging in a rational, constructive discussion. It’s an example we all should follow.

If the end goal is to change Thai society so that it embraces democratic principles, then it stands to reason that it’s the task of proponents of these values to change the hearts and minds of the traditionalists.

Lese majeste amounts to ink on paper, and that’s never done anyone any harm. We can’t change the laws if we don’t change hearts and minds.

Confrontation such as this protest by the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Section 112 at Thammasat University is unlikely to gain changes to the lese majeste law. (Bangkok Post file photo by Pattanapong Hirunard)

Picture a typical Thai person with traditional values – let’s call her Fai, a middle-age woman. Fai takes care of her family. She goes to work. She pays taxes. She makes merit at the temple. Her lifestyle is not unlike many other Thais or many people of other nationalities, for that matter.

She stands at attention in the movie house when the royal anthem is played, not because she has to, but because she wants to. She has a portrait of the King in her house. She wears the King’s colour on special occasions and prays daily for his good health.

This is the only King she has known. To her, he represents the Thai national identity that has held the country together for some 60 years, through the Cold War and communist insurgency, while our neighbours fell apart, their families destroyed and their societies crumbled. This is the King who has always been shown among the people, caring for the sick and helping the poor.

Fai loves the King with all her heart. She’s a royalist, but not a People’s Alliance for Democracy member or yellow shirt. This is an emotional commitment that forms the basis of a firmly entrenched belief system – democratic principles are relatively new in Thailand and have only touched all parts of Thai society in recent years.

We all have emotional commitments to things or people we love or hold sacred. Now take that and multiply it by 100, and imagine Fai’s rection to anyone she perceives is insulting or making fun of the King, whom she loves and holds sacred.

Now picture someone else, someone who puts himself on a pedestal and who is much less of a traditionalist – let’s called him Ko. Though Ko does not insult or make fun of the King, he talks down to Fai. He throws the democratic left hook, the freedom uppercut and the human rights kick to the groin, calling her an ultra-royalist, fascist PAD. Then that person’s foreign friend – let’s called him Carlos – joins in, calling her a feudal slave in a country that will never amount to anything.

Then Ko and Carlos exchange high-fives, go online and write on their blogs about the wonderful civilised world of democracy. They tweet and write on their Facebook pages, ridiculing anyone who doesn’t completely agree with them. This is because, well you know, everyone completely agrees with Ko and Carlos about freedom, human rights and democracy; otherwise they are ultra-royalist PAD-loving feudal slaves.

Meanwhile, Fai clams up, fearing not just insults and ridicule, but also constructive criticism.

Fai is not the one who wrote, passed, interpreted or executed the lese majeste law. But she and millions like her do not object to the law, and even support its strict usage. They support of it because of emotional attachments and for cultural reasons, but also because of people like Ko and Carlos.

Too often, the likes of Ko and Carlos are the proponents of democratic principles. They enjoy the adulation of their own group of like-minded people, but they are never able to reach out to others. It’s a mutual adoration society.

Receiving applause from those who already agree with us is sticking with the status quo. Receiving applause from those who previously disagreed with us is progress.

We may disagree with Fai’s support of the lese majeste law, but if we fail to appreciate and respect how she thinks and feels, then we have not only failed in our democratic principles, we have failed to behave intelligently.

Instead of making a stance for democratic principles, the likes of Ko and Carlos are really only taking a stand for their own vanity. We shouldn’t make democracy the new religion – it deserves better treatment than that.

Allow me to humbly suggest that Fai and millions like her are intelligent individuals who can be reasoned with; that they want the best for Thailand, even if their vision of what is best differs from ours, and that if we act out of respect and decency, we might persuade Fai and others like her to appreciate open discussion and constructive criticism on any subject, including the monarchy. Not everyone, but enough to steer society on a democratic course.

Ko is perhaps very Westernised and is adamant about democratic principles, and perhaps he wants to turn Thailand into whichever Western country he idolises. Perhaps Ko’s heart is also in the right place and he also wants the best for Thailand. But Ko is impatient and believes his fancy overseas degrees mean he knows better than other Thais. This too is because of an emotional attachment, as well as a delusion. And when that is challenged, Ko lashes out.

We shouldn’t turn our back completely on the values that have made this country what it is. Thailand is far from ideal, but it’s still a place people from across the globe flock to visit and to live in, and it affords more opportunities, freedom and human rights than most of the rest of the world.

If we turn our back on Thai values, then we turn our back on our own country and the generations of our parents and grandparents.

From a position of respect and decency Ko and Fai can learn to listen to and understand each other, and together make Thailand the best it can be. We can marry respect and decency with democratic principles without the need for draconian laws.

Nation-building is not done in a day, a year or even 10 years. It takes time and perseverance. We are all impatient and want it all now. But that’s not possible.

By thumbing his nose at Fai, dismissing her thoughts and feelings and disregarding the cultural and historical context of Thailand, Ko is giving up on Thailand, his own country. In this, Ko does himself, his country and the world a disservice.

I ask Ko’s forgiveness for this harsh criticism; it’s tough medicine, but Ko needs to get over himself.

The darker side of lese majeste isn’t the law itself – words written down might give you a paper cut, that’s about it. It’s the narrow-mindedness and self-righteous indignation surrounding the law that perpetuates the conflict. We have all been guilty of that, including myself.

My name is Ko and in my high school Spanish class I was Carlos. I have been guilty of most of the traits I’ve attributed to them at different points in my life, especially when I was a teenager. But evolution is a wonderful thing.

If anyone out there has never been guilty of vanity and small-mindedness, then good on you and you can stay on your pedestal. But if we want to change the world, we have to start by changing ourselves. Stay on the pedestal, or jump down. Your response to this column will reveal who you are, or who you want to be in this world.

4)

Conclusion: Not Free

Well, as the likes of Bangkok Post propagates “Tolerance” of lese majeste, Thailand has been rated “Not Free” for the second time in as many years by US-based Freedom House in its 2012 global assessment due to heavy sentencing by courts under the lese majeste law, as well as online censorship. “Thailand moved from Partly Free to Not Free [in 2011] due to court rulings that the lese majeste law does not contradict constitutional provisions for freedom of expression and that third-party hosts are liable for lese majeste content posted online.

Most expert on Thailand says, the Thai justice system, where the constitutional court plays a key role in Thai politics, is the primary tool for the Bangkok Traditional Elite Establishment’s control of Thailand.

When the Thai Commission to Develop the Rule of law, says the Thai Constitutional Court, is abusing powers, Bangkok Post should have noticed.

When a group of about 400 MPs and Senators, says the Thai Constitutional Court, is abusing powers, Bangkok Post should have noticed.

When the Thai Truth Commission, in charged of Thailand’s reconciliation, says the Thai Constitutional Court, should be “Especially Careful” in its use of powers, Bangkok Post should have noticed.

When one after another highly credible academic and law expert, says the Thai Constitutional Court have breached the “Separation of Powers” between the judiciary, administrative and the legislative branch, Bangkok Post should have noticed.

When even Thailand’s most influential newspaper, Thai Rath, that Bangkok Post often translate its key article for Bangkok Post readers to read, says the Thai Constitutional Court, have created a new constitution on their own to govern Thailand, the Bangkok Post should have noticed.

Yet while the likes of Bangkok Post reject all common sense, and does its duty in supporting the Elite Establishment, If that saying above is true, the Elite is now running into a dead end road.

The Thai Elite, no longer has the street muscle it once had and it can not win elections. And Coup is no longer accepted, by both the Thais and the globe. What ever rulings it makes against Democracy and the elected government, Democracy is on a march in Thailand.

That march towards Democracy is over-coming the past.

The past is, Thailand’s justice system, have played a key role in Thailand’s political conflict since the Thai King called on judges, in a speech five months before the coup to resolve a pending constitutional crisis. Since then, courts have voided an election won by Thaksin’s party, disbanded two parties linked to him, disqualified about 200 of his allies, sentenced him to jail and seized US$1.6 billion of his wealth.

(Up-Dated) A coup had occurred, by Prayuth. The coup came after a combination of Suthep, former security chief of Abhisit lead protest and judicialization, remdered the Yingluck government not able to function. That un-able to function, coupled with opposing protest, from Suthep and the Reds, lead army chief to attempt to broker a deal, but he failed, and as a result took control. Sunsequent news from Suthep, says he an Prayuth have been working together to topple Yingluck. Prayuth deny the charges. The constitutional court, had greatly made the Yingluck government not able to function, such as stopping its investment plans and ruling against Senators who voted to amend the military constitution.

(Up-Dated) Perhaps, the Constitutional Court judges, engulfed and corrupted by power, “insanely” ruled that Thailand’s infrastructure spending, including High Speed Rail System, was un-constitutional, giving the reason that, quote: “Thailand still had roads that are un-paved by asphalt, and that High Speed Rail System, is against the Thai King’s sufficiency economy theory.

1)

Poll says Amend Constitution

Yingluck have won an election for about 2 years now. In her election campaign, she said one of her main objective, was to amend the constitution. And the result of the election is, she won a landslide.

From that campaign election promise and the result of the election, Yingluck said in parliament, on declaring her government’s policy, that she will amend the constitution.

In sum, the election result, gave Yingluck the mandate to amend the constitution.

What no one counted on, was the court reaction, stopping the constitutional amendment, starting in 2012.

That court reaction, apart from running against the election mandat, is also running against current poll, where the latest poll of the Thais, agree with amending the constitution.

(76% say they worry amending the constitution will lead to great division, 70% agree that appointed senators should be abolish because senators should come from the people, 62% says current constitution guarantees human rights adequately.)

And apart from that poll, countless polls and research on Thailand, says about 70% to 80% of the Thai people wants Democracy, leaving about 20%, wanting some form of a dictatorship.

Clearly, the majority of the people of Thailand, is against the anti democracy Elite establishment.

What the constitutional court is doing, in blocking the amendment, is going against the will of the Thai people. That road, by the court, is a “Dead-End Road.”

2)

First Road Block

But, while having the people’s support, Yingluck’s ran into a road block, on amending the constitution, with the first time, being in July of 2012.

In Thailand, if you know Thailand, the most powerful newspaper is Thai Rath, and that is because its circulation, in the many millions a day is the biggest in Thailand and unlike most newspapers that target a specific group of Thais-Thai Rath is read by a cross-section of the Thai society, from top to bottom.

Thai Rath, from my long observation, has always been part of the Thai establishment, but a “Soft Traditionalist Conservative. On the front page of Thai Rath, everyday is a column by “Mae Luk Chan.”

The following is Thai Intel’s brief translation, on what “Mae Luk Chan” has to say about the situation with the Constitutional Court.

Powerful Indicator:

80 years after democracy, Thailand continues to look for full democracy, where the people holds the power.

Since it can not be found, it is the duty of the Thais who love democracy, to fight for it, untill they find it.

But today, just to amend the military constitution, to wash away the poison of the military coup, can not be done, stopped and no need try.

That is because the Constitutional Court have blocked it, with heavy equipment.

Originally, Mae Luc Chan look at the world from the positive side, and pushed for parliament to delay the amending the military constitution, as ordered by the Constitutional Court.

That is to give the Constitutional Court time to investigate the complaint if the amending of the military constitution, will destroy the “Constitutional Monarchy System” or not, with transparency and straight judgement.

That is because when the Constitutional Court have heard of the argument, the Constitutional Court will have to rule that there is no threat to the system of “Constitutional Monarchy” because the amending process is according to the law, in every angle.

However, after mae Luk Chan hearing of the latest from a Constitutional Court judge head, Wassan, there are signals of “danger.”

Mae Luk Chan will give a few examples of what he said.

“When look at the way they are going to amend the constitution, they will amend every section of the constitution,” says Wassan.

Mae Luk Chan will have to disagree with Wassan here, in that the amending does not involved every section.

Also, the amending process involves the election of Thais to be represented in the amending process and finally, let the people of Thailand, vote to accept the amended constitution or not.

This is in accordance with Democracy, on all accounts.

If you asked, where is there anything about the destruction of the “Constitutional Monarchy System?”

Wassan says, “While the amending process forbid touching the clauses about the Monarchy, but if those elected to amend it change it, what are we to do?”

Mae Luk Chan humble tells the Constitutional Court’s Wassan, not to use an overly active imagination.”

That is because, in the amending process, it is clearly stated that the sections about the Monarchy can not be touch.

With such an “Iron Clad” prohibition, those elected to amend the constitution, can not touch it.

Wassan also gave a stern warning toYingluck’s Pheu Thai Party, that instead of arguing with the Constitutional Court, it should go and argue with those who petitioned the Constitutional Court.

“With the case to disband the Thai Rak Thai Party, instead of preparing the case against the Attorney General office, they did not, and the result is the disbandment of the Thasi Rak Thai Party,” said Wassan.

Mae Luk Chan wants to inform all, that in the Thai Rak Thai Party disbandment case, fighting or not fighting the disbandment case makes no differences, because Thai Rak Thai was going to be disbanded no matter what.

That is because the Constitutional Court, used the proclamation of the 2006 coup, to go back before the proclamation, and disband the Thai Rak Thai Party, which is not in accordance with proper Rule of Law.

For Wassan to bring up the Thai Rak Thai disbandment case, bodes ill for the Constitutional Court.

Meaning, there is the last words by Wassan.

“Someone like me does not seek revenge, but I do not forget easily,” says Wassan

When people of Wassan stature says something like that, “it is dangerous.”

3)

Judicial Coup

Just a brief background, that the Thai Constitutional Court, in that 2012 move to block the amendment of the constitution, have breached the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial and administrative branch and ordered parliament to stop the amending the military constitution, in what many say, is a “Judicial Coup.”

Parliament, back by laws, says it can ignore the Constitutional Court, but citing a hope for a compromise, Parliament delay the process, in what the House Speaker said is to give every side opportunity to step back, from a confrontation.

Most political analyst in Thailand says the Constitutional Court move, is part of setting the rationale to disband Yingluck‘s political party, in what most analyst say will plunge Thailand into a civil war, as millions of supporters of Yingluck will take to the street protesting.

Other press wise, Bangkok Post and the Nation, being part of the Thai establishment and supports Abhisit, came out to supports the Constitutional Court. The Thai Elite establishment, link the constitutional amendment, to attempt to grant Thaksin Amnesty. The same attitude, that the constitutional issue is about Thaksin, is also what global press with close link to the Thai establishment and Abhisit, like Reuters believe.

But to most, the constitutional court action is clearly, a “Judicial Coup.”

On June 1, 2012, Thailand’s Constitutional Court took the extraordinary step of issuing an injunction, quickly shown to have violated the law and exceeded the bounds of the Court’s constitutional authority,1 ordering the National Assembly to cease all deliberations on a proposed amendment to the 2007 Constitution, pending a review of the amendment’s constitutionality. The injunction was issued on the same day when a few hundred activists from the so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), in cooperation with members of the opposition Democrat Party, blockaded all roads to Thailand’s parliament, preventing the House of Representatives from meeting to debate a controversial “Reconciliation Act.” The previous two meetings of the House had been disrupted by the PAD’s threat to storm the halls of the National Assembly, and by the intemperate outbursts of Democrat Party members of parliament, some of whom physically assaulted the House Speaker and other parliamentarians. Once again, the PAD, the Democrat Party, and the Constitutional Court have teamed up to delegitimize the democratic process, prevent the representatives of the Thai people from fulfilling their legislative functions under the Constitution, and lay the groundwork for the removal of a duly elected and legally constituted government, whether by military force (as in 2006) or by judicial intervention (as in 2008).

Given the frequency with which the Constitutional Court has infringed upon the Thai people’s right to elect their own governments, and the scandalous nature of its two most recent rulings, this report makes the case for the removal of each of the Court’s justices, under the impeachment powers that the Constitution reserves for Thailand’s Senate. Aside from the immediate necessity of preventing another “judicial coup,” the restoration of the rule of law simply cannot take place so long as the country’s highest court is composed of judges who make so little pretense of independence and impartiality, and act with such blatant disregard for the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

The document below, released today by Amsterdam & Partners, outlines the history and the rationale for the impeachment of Thailand’s Constitutional Court.

4)

“And” Means “Or”

For Yingluck, only a year earlier she won an election landslide on a promise to amend the military constitution. But on July of 1012, the constitutional court, have stopped the amendment process, and Yingluck party faced disbandment.

And where did the constitutional court “GOT” the power from? Well, the constitutional court judge, decided that the word “AND” in the constitution, means “OR” are gave itself, unilateral power on all matter related to the constitution, meaning, it does not have to go through the attorney general office, but can accept cases, directly from anyone.

The Constitutional Court website even says the court must go through the general Attorney’s Office, and the anniversary book of the court says the same thing. The court, simply erased its website and recalled those books.

Saksith Saiyasombut writes in his blog:

At the center of this controversial decision by court (to stop Parliament constitutional amendment process) is Article 68 of the 2007 Constitution. Here is the original passage with two unofficial translations – pay close attention to the second and third paragraph:

Part 13: Rights To Protect the Constitution

Section 68. A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution.

Where a person or political party acts under paragraph one, the witness thereof has the right to report the matter to the Prosecutor General to investigate the facts and to submit a request to the Constitutional Court for decision to order cessation of such act without prejudice to criminal proceedings against the doer of the act.

If the Constitutional Court decides to order cessation of the said act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order dissolution of that political party.

In case of order dissolution of that political party by the Constitutional Court under paragraph three, the leader of the dissolute Party and the member of the board of executive committee under paragraph one are prohibited the right of election for five years from the date of the order by the Constitutional Court.

“Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007, B.E. 2550 (2007)“, unofficial translation by IFES Thailand and the Political Section and Public Diplomacy Office of the US Embassy Bangkok. (PDF)

Part 13: Right to Protect the Constitution

Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such actwithout, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

All three versions say that an Attorney General (or here a “Prosecutor General”) is to be contacted by those filing a petition, who then submits this case to the Constitutional Court for review. However, so far reportedly only one petition has gone through the Attorney General, while the rest seems to have skipped him and have gone directly to the court.

This all comes down to the fine semantic details of the second paragraph: can the entire process, from receiving a petition to submitting the case to the Court, be only done by the Attorney General? Or to put it another way: can the petitioner contact the Attorney General, but also go directly to the Court to launch a motion? The Constitutional Court apparently chose the latter interpretation.

However, critics say this is a (intentional) misinterpretation and a political interference:

The Constitution Court has been accused of acting outside its jurisdiction when it ordered parliament to suspend vetting of the charter amendment bill.

The Pheu Thai Party and legal experts yesterday were gearing up for impeachment proceedings against the court’s judges whom they claim violated the constitution as they had no right to take up protest petitions without a final opinion by the Office of the Attorney General. (…)

Legal expert and former senator Panas Tassaneeyanond agreed the court’s order was unconstitutional. ”The action can be deemed a violation of the charter as it is meddling in administrative power. I call on the public to sign a petition to impeach the judges under Section 270 of the constitution,” Mr Panas wrote on his Facebook page on Friday.

He said under the principle of the supremacy of parliament, the House does not have to follow the Constitution Court’s order to suspend vetting of the bill.

“Constitution Court under fire over charter bill vote“, June 3, 2012

These are a few voices against the move by the Constitutional Court (e.g. political commentator Nattakorn Devakula, the Nitirat group and many, many more) but the consensus is that Article 68 has been wrongly interpreted.

The Constitutional Court itself is unimpressed by the impeachment calls and its president has clarified its decision, citing the motives of the petition (“questioning the legality of the push to amend the charter”), while ignoring the Attorney General’s role in this process – but most of all being concerned that “there is no guarantee that charter provisions on the monarchy would not be amended,” revealing where the priorities are for them.

The government and its coalition parties have 15 days (since this past weekend) to clarify and defend their proposed amendments to the constitution, while it is deliberating to defy the court-ordered suspension and push the bills ahead anyways (albeit in some other way) or to call it a break let things cool down over the summer recess, as suggested by Abhisitand considered by Pheu Thai.

The contents of the Reconciliation Bills, which give a blanket amnesty for all wrongdoings done by everybody in the past years while sacrificing justice for the victims of the political crisis for the sake of “national unity”, need to be debated.

However, the Constitutional Court’s interference into the debate that is being fought at all fronts, fears of a “judicial coup” have come up that could befall the current Pheu Thai-led government with the same fate of its previous incarnation in 2008 by yet another re-politicized institution that is not meant to be politicized.

5)

A New Civil War

The problem for the Elite Establishment is that Thailand in 2012, because of the constitutional court, verged on a crisis again. And the fact is, again, the Elite establishment, does not have the street muscle or the ability to win election. And now, in March of 2013, again, it has thrown Thailand, into a crisis mode.

BBC Reports:

13 July 2012

Thai court to rule on new constitution plan

Friday’s ruling could spark a new wave of political protests in Bangkok

Thailand’s constitutional court is set to issue a ruling on Friday which could spark a new round of political unrest.

Judges will decide whether efforts by the ruling Pheu Thai party to draft a new constitution are legal. Those opposed to constitutional amendments argue that the process could undermine Thailand’s revered monarchy.

If the judgement goes against Pheu Thai, the court could also dissolve the party – a move which correspondents say may trigger mass demonstrations.

The BBC’s Jonah Fisher in Bangkok says that Pheu Thai’s supporters would almost certainly rally against what they already see as interference in the democratic process.

A year ago Pheu Thai won more than half the seats in the general election with Yingluck Shinawatra becoming prime minister.

She is the sister of deposed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Although a decision to disband Pheu Thai may not bring her down, the constitutional court has already disbanded parties linked to her brother Thaksin twice in the past five years.

Security is reported to be heavy at the court ahead of the hearing.

Mr Thaksin was ousted by the military in a September 2006 coup and is now living in self-imposed exile in Dubai.

Rivalry between his supporters and opponents, known as red shirts and yellow shirts, has been a frequent cause of political unrest in the country.

The yellow shirts were behind the huge street protests that led up to the military coup of September 2006 and the ones two years later which led to Mr Thaksin’s allies being forced from power.

In April 2010, the red shirts occupied Bangkok’s historic and commercial districts in an attempt to topple the government. The demonstrations turned violent when the army tried to disperse protesters; at least 90 people were killed in clashes in total.

6)

Constitutional Court Judge Thinking

It is incredible, how 9 judge of the constitution court, can take Thailand to the brink of civil war, and nothing can be done.

Increasingly, Thais of all side, apart from the Elite establishment and its press, are becoming highy critical of the constitutional court. Most Thais sees the constitutional court judge as bordering on insanity, for example, on translation the word “AND” to mean “OR.”

In understanding the constitutional court, NNT reports:

BANGKOK, 18 March 2013 (NNT) – The Constitution Court has faced harsh criticism from Puea Thai party, Chat Thai Pattana party, and some senators, after the Constitution Court president admitted that the rulings to disqualify former Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and to dissolve political parties were, in his word, “careless”.

Constitution Court President Wasan Soipisuth said, in a seminar organized by the court, that the court procedures that led to the ruling in 2008 to disqualify former Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej relied too much on individual judges’ personal opinions, and failed to clearly establish what the facts were before making a decision on the legality of the acts of persons involved.

Mr Wasan also said that the ruling to dissolve the Palang Prachachon and Chart Thai Pattana parties was “necessary in order to avoid political chaos”.

Mr Wasan’s remark was heavily criticised by Chart Thai Pattana party’s spokesman Watchara Kannikar, who accused the Constitution Court of basing its verdict on its own disputable opinion that the Chart Thai Pattana party was a potential cause of “political chaos”.

Puea Thai party’s deputy spokesman Jirayut Huangsap asked that the Constitution Court judges be summoned to House Committee on Judicial Affairs to explain what happened before the ruling.

Meanwhile, Senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana asked the Constitution Court to show responsibility for its mistake, and suggested that if all the Constitution Court judges agree with Mr Wasan that the ruling did not follow proper procedures, the court should rectify its erroneous verdict.

7)

Second Road Block

After stopping Parliament in July of 2012, currently, in March of 2013, Yingluck is attempting to amend the military constitution again, after a long break from about July of 2012.

As with in July of 2012, the constitutional court has accepted a petition to stop the amendment again. But this time, issued no injunction for the process to stop.

The Constitutional Court decided to proceed with a trial in the complaint against Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont and 311 coalition MPs and senators who supported Article 68 amendment. The proposed amendment seeks to restrict the people’s right to submit petitions to the Constitutional Court via the Office of the Attorney-General only, alleged that the amendment would violate the charter as the Constitutional Court had earlier ruled that it had the power to receive complaints from the public directly. Somchai also alleged that the amendment to Article 68 was planned with ulterior motives.

Making most noise at objecting to the constitutional change is the appointed senators, who would loose their position.

Paiboon, an appointed senator of the so-called Group of 40 Senators, said if the Constitutional Court ruled that an amendment to Article 68 was unconstitutional, MPs and senators who voted for the amendment, might be regarded as having violated the charter. Senator Paiboon Nititawan yesterday warned that coalition MPs and pro-government senators might be removed from office for enacting a bill to amend Article 68 of the Constitution. He said the parties of the MPs might be dissolved and the senators might be removed from office.

9)

Yingluck Not Backing Down

With Yingluck, increasingly assertive, and not backing down from the Elite Establishment, there is nowhere for the Elite to go but back down.

Again, the Elite establishment lacks the street muscle of the past and cannot win elections. The only way out for the establishment, is to compromise with Yingluck.

The battle, between Yingluck and the Elite, increasingly is about legal issues, where the Elite will have a hard time explaining the situation to the Thai people.

But Pichit Chuenban, a legal expert of the Pheu Thai, said Constitutional Court judges themselves would face a criminal probe for violating the charter by accepting the complaint against Somsak and the 311 other defendants.

Pichit alleged that the Constitutional Court judges who voted to try the case had violated the defendants’ rights to receive a fair trial by indicating in their decision on Wednesday that the amendment appeared to be wrong.

Pichit said Article 40 guaranteed the rights of defendants to receive fair trial so the Constitutional Court judges apparently violated the article.

Pichit said the court’s decision to proceed with the trial was also tantamount to a violation of the power of the legislative branch that has the authority to enact laws.

Pichit said the Pheu Thai might file complaints against the Constitutional Court judges with the Administrative Court and the courts of justice.

Pheu Thai MP from Ubon Ratchathani, Somkid Chueakong, said he and his colleague Worachai Hema would file a complaint with the police at Thung Song Hong Police Station today against the Constitutional Court for abusing its power. It was interfering in the legislative branch’s power while it should not have accepted to rule in the case filed by Somchai.

9)

World Justice Report

When Thai Intel started the blog about 2 years ago, one of the first report was on the Songkhla-Network of senior and highly influential Thai judges that is linked to Prem, the privy council to the Thai king-through their shared time in the Songkhla province in Southern Thailand.

There is a great deal of writings about the Thai justice system, being highly politicized over the years, with a “Judicialization” of Thailand to go after those who are against the Thai establishment.

The evidence supporting the sheer twisting the rule of law to support the Thai establishment and going after its opposition-is massive and well documented.

The problem in Thailand, is not that people do not know that there is a “Double Standard” in the Thai justice system, however. But the problem is that there are many in Thailand, who sees that the “Rule of Law” has no place in Thailand.

In fact, the royalist, elite and military rulers of Thailand says it plainly and openly, and gets a great deal of support, when they say that, quote: “Democracy, Liberty, Justice, and human rights are non-Thai values.”

How does one teach, those that do not believe in justice, to see the importance of it-is the question a society like Thailand needs to address. Furthermore, it is not a just a Thailand specific question. This question, applies to a great many country and a great many people of this globe.

The following is from the Thailand summary of the World Justice Report:

Compared with other lower middle-income countries, Thailand performs relatively well, obtaining high marks on absence of crime (ranking 20th globally), and effectiveness of the criminal justice system (ranking 24th). However, some areas require further attention. Civil conflict and political violence remain significant problems (ranking 64th). Corruption is a challenge, particularly within the police. The Thai civil justice system is characterized by government influence and lengthy duration of cases. Access to official information is limited (ranking 62nd).

10)

A Net-Work Court

Again, one of the first post at Thai Intel, started about 2008, was about the “Songkhla Network” of senior judges in Thailand, linked to the Privy to the Thai King Prem. The judges are called part of the the Songkhla Network, for serving duty in Songkhla, where Prem is from.\Prem, is of course the head of the Thai establishment, that is anti Thaksin.

Through Prem’s net-work, the strings are pulled on the Thai courts, system wide, including the Constitutional Court judges.

And apart from Prem, after all is said and done, two factors should be noted.

First; People, who later became Thailand’s constitutional court judge, took part in meetings to prepare for the staging of the 2006 coup, and second; people close to Abhisit’s Democrat Party, later became constitutional court judge.

The 2007 Military Constitution mandated that the Constitution Court consists of 9 justices, who serve for nine-year terms, meaning, they are entrenched, and meant to be there long-term, to control Thailand.

Three justices are elected by a general assembly of Supreme Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks. Two justices are elected by a general assembly of Administrative Court judges by secret ballot from their own ranks. Four justices (two experts in the field of law and two experts in the administration of state affairs) are nominated by a selection committee and confirmed by the Senate.

What the above indicates, is a Constitutional Court that is disconnected from the people, the nature of a dictatorial system, and second, the inter-locking and self supporting and self serving of Senators and the judges, locking away power among themselves.

In a move that finally cost him his life, Seh Daeng, a Thai army general, abandoned his allegiance to the anti Democracy Elite Establishment, and join the pro Democracy Red Shirt movement. And he went beyond just joining the Red Shirts. Most observer call Seh Daeng the “Chief of Security” for the Red Shirts movement.

(Up-Dated) Thailand’s Dictator Prayuth, threw all death cases involved in the 2010 crac-down, out of the normal court system, to the court for political offenses, where the first step at this court, is the anti-corruption agency. Thailand’s anti-corruption agency, works for the Bangkok traditional elite.

In the book, “Lub, Kom Seh Daeng,” by Lim, a close friend of Seh Daeng, Lim said quote:

“Seh Daeng was genuinely happy to be among the Red Shirts protesters…..Like a movie star to the poor grassroots Red Shirts protesters, they surround Seh Daeng asking for his photograph and autograph……Everywhere Seh Daeng went among the Red Shirts protesters, they would follow Seh Deang. He was the star of the show.”

In defense of the Red Shirts protesters, Seh Daeng lead a ragtag militia, which in full public view, mostly went around with sticks, burning auto rubber tire and used sling shots. There are talks of much more heavy items, used by Seh Daeng in defense of the Red Shirts.

But Seh Daeng says often, to journalist, quote:

“I am confident we can do the job of standing up to the well-organized Thai military and its 1,000s of well equipped soldiers, and also the Yellow Shirts guards with their golf clubs, baseball bats, slingshots and their guns.”

The Thai political crisis was very dangerous. The Elite Establishment’s Yellow Shirts would have “Impunity” at anything they do, and the Red Shirts, enjoyed no similar impunity. The Red Shirts, many, but had to face the “Blunt power of the law.”

To a foreign journalist, Seh Daeng said, quote:

“The police couldn’t help. My men are not an army, they are resistance. I am not on the side of the reds or the yellows, I am independent. The PAD says they want to save the country. But they are dragging the monarchy down into politics. This situation needs tough leadership. But the government is weak, no one is capable of sorting this out, not even the army. Everyone is afraid of the PAD. The only one they are afraid of is me.’

‘Nobody messes with me, I am a warrior, I am Seh Daeng.’

Seh Daeng, while indeed, kept his distance from the Red Shirts protesters at the start of the Thai political crisis. But as the situation developed, without a doubt, he joined the pro Democracy Red Shirts movement. Many said, that joining was mostly Seh Daeng’s own decision, that “No one can refuse the offer.”

(Up-Dated) A coup had occurred, by Prayuth. The coup came after a combination of Suthep, former security chief of Abhisit lead protest and judicialization, remdered the Yingluck government not able to function. That un-able to function, coupled with opposing protest, from Suthep and the Reds, lead army chief to attempt to broker a deal, but he failed, and as a result took control. Sunsequent news from Suthep, says he an Prayuth have been working together to topple Yingluck. Prayuth deny the charges. In coming to power, Prayuth changed the police chief, to being a police that is ally with the military. Seh Daeng’s assasination, apprear far from being re-solved.

1)

Democratic Soldier

The first time I met Seh Daeng was at a Red Shirts protest, long before the Red Shirts occupy the Rajprasong intersection.

But it was still a tense time, as with every Red Shirts protest, the entire protest area would be partitioned off, and the border would guarded by both the Elite Establishment security force, and the Red Shirts protesters own security guards.

There has been lots of talk about how the Red Shirts security guards, with Seh Daeng involvement, carried weapons such as guns. But at most of the Red Shirts protest, security guards, actually went around wearing T-Shirts that says, “Non Violence.”

Does that T-Shirts wearing actually mean the guards were non violent? Well, who knows.

At one gathering of the Red Shirts, as I walked among them, there was an area where there was a long line and large crowd of protesters. About in the middle of that crowd of Red Shirts protesters, was Seh Daeng. Seh Daeng was signing autographs, on to lots of things, like hats, where even hats with Red Socialist Stars to it. Many were taking pictures of Seh Daeng.

After each signing, Seh Daeng would salute to the person that just got his autograph or picture, in a “Strict Military” style. And almost always, with the “Strict Military” style salute, the crowd would approve with smiles and laughter. The whole Seh Daeng met the Red Shirts, where most of the Red Shirts were grass-roots, was about crossing the Thai social divide, between upper class and the lower class. Seh Daeng after all, is a Thai Army general, that traditionally, protected the Elite Establishment.

“Can I have a smile for my camera Seh Daeng,” I asked him, shouting into where he was standing with his 4 to 5 body guards, giving away signatures.

“You have to come here and stand in line like everyone else,” shouted back Seh Daeng, with a face, that was not in a friendly welcome mood. I got the signal, and went to join the line, and waited to get close to Seh Daeng.

Seh Daeng was definitely, a Thai army general that belonged to the people.

In Thailand’s history, the military is mostly pro Elite Establishment. That being pro Elite Establishment, have meant that since Absolute Monarchy was replaced by Constitutional Monarchy, some 80 years ago, the Thai military was mostly anti Democracy. In fact, since WW 2, Thailand is ranked as 4th globally, with the most number of coup staged.

In that long Thai history, of the past 80 year of being mostly anti democracy, there was a short period of time that the so called “Democratic Soldier” movement, occurred in Thailand. That movement had long died off, leaving few soldiers of that thinking around today. But during the time of the height of Thailand’s Democratic Soldier, they pushed for many progressive agenda for the Thai military.

Similar to Seh Daeng, Thailand’s Democratic Soldiers of the past, they were the “People’s Soldier.”

Many are in dispute what the Red Shirts movement stand for. But the fact is, the Red Shirts movement is the largest movement in Thailand’s history, being the grass roots, that is interested in Democracy.

Seh Daeng, for what ever the reason, dedicated his life, to protect the movement.

2)

A Dramatic Life & Death

A foreign journalist noted of Seh Daeng: “He is not an ordinary man. He is ‘Seh Daeng’ – a folk hero in Thailand for his combat exploits from Laos to Cambodia to Aceh.”

In fact, there was a time, that Seh Daeng was highly popular with foreign journalist in Thailand. There are literally 10s of 10s of interviews with Seh Daeng by foreign journalist.

Many Red Shirts, even today, fault the death of Seh Daeng on foreign journalist. In deed, Seh Daeng knew in advance that snipers would be targeting him, as his security guard, would prevent Seh Daeng from “Too Long” an exposure to being open. And Seh Daeng, would often give interview in well protected area.

But on the day he was assassinated, the Red Shirts says, Seh Daeng, was, quote: “Intentionally lured out in the open long enough for the sniper to lock on and kill Seh Daeng.” But there was no doubt, many foreign journalist were following Seh Daeng.

One wrote:

“He speaks animatedly, eyes intense, face animated, gesticulating decisively. He gets up and takes down a poster showing the covers of several books about him. They show him riding a white stallion, brandishing weapons, and dressed as a Muslim in an undercover mission in Aceh,” said one journalist.

“Seh Daeng is a larger than life figure in Thailand – a notorious, fearless maverick who famously laughs in the face of enemy fire. He said if it was up to him, he would clear Government House of the PAD protestors in no time. He would first cut off all supplies including water and electricity, then use water cannons on the thousands camped there – and drop snakes on them from helicopters,” said another journalist.

Seh Daeng’s enemy finally caught up.

Tension soared amid the sound of explosions and gunfire and there was a mob atmosphere in Bangkok, where protesters had massed. Then violence erupted as one demonstrator was killed and the key protest leader, Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol, known as Seh Daeng, was shot in the head.

On the evening of May 13, 2010, Seh Daeng was shot in the head, at the intersection of the Sala Daeng Sky Train station. Critically wounded, he was admitted to Huachiew hospital. On May 16, 2010, he suffered renal failure and underwent dialysis. His death was announced on May 17, 2010 at 9:20 am. At the time of his death, he was about to be cashiered from the Royal Thai Army for his refusal to obey orders to stay neutral, in the Thai political crisis.

One journalist summarizes the assassination of Seh Daeng as:

He was shot during an interview with a reporter for The New York Times about 7 p.m., one hour after the military announced the start of a blockade and cut off electricity and water to a tent city of thousands of protesters. The reporter, who was two feet away and facing the general, heard a loud bang similar to that of a firecracker. The general fell to the ground, his eyes wide open, and protesters took his apparently lifeless body to a hospital, screaming his nickname: “Seh Daeng has been shot! Seh Daeng has been shot!”

He was later reported to be on life support. Within hours, protesters were clashing with security forces in Lumpini Park in Bangkok. To today, it is still not known who killed Seh Deang, the very well known soldier, among the Thai people. Seh Daeng is so well known, in most Seven Eleven convenience stores, in Thailand, there were books about his exploits on sale.

3)

War Story Never Dies?

Those words above that “Seh Daeng has been shot! Seh Daeng has been shot!” sound like the first page of a Hollywood Movie script.

But to be frank, I get a sense, now, a few years after his death, that few really care who killed She Daeng or who Seh Daeng was.

There is very little from the police as to who killed Seh Daeng. Of course, it was the Elite Establishment, that killed Seh Daeng, but which fraction gave the order and which fraction carried out the order.

Latest news, from the police, is that a police general, sort of a mafia in the E-Sarn Region of Thailand, where Nevin fraction is strong, was the fraction that carried out the assassination. But that is all the news there is, sort of a mixture between rumor and politics. Nevin, is the politician that stabbed Thaksin in the back and joined the Elite Establishment in pushing Abhisit into power.

On researching for information on She Daeng, as I expected, the question of who assassinated Seh Daeng, only came up a few weeks and months after he was killed. And after that few weeks and month, most journalists have forgotten Seh Daeng. And as I notice in doing research, after a while there was nothing about Seh Daeng anymore. Even the Seven Eleven convenience store that sold novels on Seh Daeng, stopped carrying books about him, after the political crisis.

Seh Daeng, seems to be just another character, one of many, that emerged, standing out, of that chaotic time in Bangkok. Like every player that had his time in the Thai political crisis, Seh Daeng had his. But there was time, news on Seh Daeng was “Burning Hot.”

And news of Seh Daeng was global.

A day after Seh Daeng was shot; during the height of the Thai political crisis, CNN and BBC, both reported that Thailand’s army spokesman, Col. Sansern Kaewkumnerd, said that the Thai military had nothing to do with the assassination of Seh Daeng. “The Thursday incident is under investigation,” said the spokesman, both CNN and BBC reports.

That CNN and BBC reports were a few years back when the Red Shirts protesters were protesting by occupying streets in Bangkok. Currently, it is 2013, and still, no one knows who assassinated Seh Daeng, as the Thai military investigation, mentioned by CNN and BBC, has gotten nowhere. The same is with the Thai police investigation, it have also got nowhere.

CNN said, after the shooting of Seh Daeng, that while it was unknown whether Thailand’s military or government was behind the shooting, the government has previously made it clear it would shoot at what it called armed terrorists. A policeman who saw Seh Daeng wounds told CNN that he has been shot by a sniper.

4)

Bloody & Brutal Crack-Down:

Clearly, after Seh Daeng assassination, the protester’s defense was “Headless” without a commanding figure. If that killing of Seh Daeng was part of the plan to prepare the situation, for crack-down on the protesters, it worked.

After the assassination of Seh Daeng, the mood grows subdued at protest camps, reports foreign journalists. Most foreign press, were reporting events after Seh Daeng was shot and subsequent death, along the following line, from CNN’s iReport, that Bangkok, increasingly, was out of control.

“The violence erupted after Thai authorities set a new deadline to seal off the Bangkok intersection where protesters have gathered by the thousands for the past month. Officials had said soldiers would seal off roads and shut down rail service leading to the Ratchaprasong intersection at 6 p.m. Thursday.

We want peace but they want war,” said Weng Tojirakarn, a party leader. “We will fight with our bare hands. We will stay.”

Authorities had initially threatened to shut off power, cut supplies and seal off the intersection at midnight Thursday. They postponed the plan because they wanted to limit the impact on area residents, said Panitan Wattanayakorn, the acting government spokesman. The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation in Bangkok said it has asked businesses in the area to shut down until the situation is resolved.

The government said it has been forced to take action after demonstrators disregarded an ultimatum by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to vacate the intersection by Wednesday.

The UDD has turned the posh commercial center into a fortress of tires and bamboo sticks as they continued to demand that Abhisit dissolve the lower house of Parliament and call new elections.

The Red Shirts support former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a bloodless military coup in 2006.”

5)

Who Assassinated Seh Daeng?

When the news about Seh Daeng was hitting the “Head Lines” in global press reports, a great many people asked who killed Seh Daeng. Most people know and agree it was the Establishment, but again, who, in the establishment? It was part of that overall confusion of the time, when there were few answers to what is occurring in Bangkok. Everyone, it seemed, was trying to put the picture together.

And there was a million of pieces to the picture of what was going on in Bangkok. And the entire picture is still not know, part of the long noted, phenomenon, of “The Truth Being Lost to Official Narrative” in Thailand.

For example, if the killer of Seh Daeng was known, perhaps, Seh Daeng death could shed some light on the bigger picture, of what was going on in Thailand. There are many theories!

The far right wing, Bangkok Post, has a theory, and even reported that Seh hDaeng may have been ordered killed, by a Red Shirts leader. Another theory, is that the assassination of Seh Daeng, is the result of two major competing fraction in the Thai military, agreeing to come to peace terms, and the killing of Seh Daeng was to “Ink the Contract in Blood” to stop the division in the Thai military.

First Theory:

According to pro Elite Bangkok Post theory, there was a split in the leadership of the Red Shirts movement, with those wanting to cut a deal with the Abhisit government and to stop protesting, and those that wanted to continue to protest, so that Abhisit would call for a general election.

Seh Daeng, reportedly, was against cutting a deal and a significant argument erupted among the Red Shirts, where the matter was settled by another red Shirts leader, Arismund, who want to continue the protest. Seh Daeng, indeed, told reporters, after the argument, that the argument nearly erupted in violent, but that no one was ready to confront him. From those basic facts, many have said the Red Shirts killed Seh Daeng, because he was getting to be greatly “Out of Control.”

Second Theory:

Then on the military fraction cutting a deal, it was about how two main fraction in the Thai military, where the fraction that was kept pinned down for years, would be allowed to rise in rank in the Thai army. The price, would be Seh Daeng’s life.

The rationale was that the fractional of the Thai army, have allowed “Rogue” soldier like Seh Daeng to emerge, weakening the military. So a deal was cut and Seh Daeng, would be killed for peace and unity in the Thai military.

Third Theory:

One foreign national security analyst said, however, quote:

“The fate of Seh Daeng of the Royal Thai Army is perhaps an extreme example of the pervasive entanglement of the military in Thai politics. Five days before the red-shirt protests ended and downtown Bangkok burned, Seh Daeng was shot in the head by a sniper from buildings high above the red-shirt protest camp. Thai authorities officially deny any involvement but it is widely suspected that the army carried out the targeted assassination of Seh Daeng—the self-declared “commander-in-chief” of the red-shirts protestors.”

Seh Daeng was increasingly identified in the public with the red-shirt protest leaders who, in full military dress, openly criticized the government and commanded security guards at the protest camp. Those security guards are suspected to include former soldiers and former paramilitary border rangers with combat experience.

Fourth Theory:

This theory says, a police general close to the Nevin fraction, killed Seh Daeng. This theory, sounds a bit too openly “Politicized” as it links Nevin to the assassination of Seh Daeng, when Nevin has become the trouble shooter for Abhisit. So this theory, points Seh daeng death, to Abhisit.

But which theory is correct?

Please continue reading. The answer to who killed Seh Daeng, is provided.

6)

Seh Daeng Up Close?

At one of the Red Shirts protest gathering, Seh Daeng gave me time for a quick talk during lunch on the side of the street. It was at one of many Red Shirts gathering at the Democracy Monument. Mostly, there are just concrete buildings around the monument and it was a hot area, especially at noon on the side of the street.

I knew I only had at best 20 minute with Seh Deang, at that lunch, so no pleasantry. And I asked Seh Daeng about security. As all around there were gates, to keep the Red Shirts protesters “Caged” in-like, with pro Elite Establishment security forces patrolling the whole Red Shirts protest. There were 1,000s of there security guards, guarding the Red Shirts protest.

“I sleep in the police traffic boxes with my team, during the protest,” said Seh Daeng, pointing to a small enclosed air-conditioned structure that the police would conduct the traffic lights control from. “How do you sleep in that police box, on a mat on the floor,” I asked Seh Daeng. Seh Daeng said he sleep on a chair that can lean back. “I have slept in small stream in the jungle. A small leaning chair to sleep is luxury,” says Seh Daeng.

“They are not allowed to enter the protest area, that is my responsibility,” says Seh Daeng, of the 1,000s of Elite Establishment security force, patrolling the Red Shirts protest. “We do not want any chances of confrontation,” says Seh Daeng, adding, “They agree to stay on the outside and let us control the inside.”

From that quick lunch with Seh Daeng, I sense Seh Deng, above all, is a professional soldier who knew security issues.”

But who is Seh Daeng, in his entirely? In the official narrative, like the Wikipedia, it say:

Khattiya Sawasdipol (Thai: ขัตติยะ สวัสดิผล; RTGS: Khattiya Sawatdiphon; June 2, 1951 – May 17, 2010), alias Seh Daeng (Thai: เสธ.แดง; RTGS: Se Daeng; English: Red Commander), was a major general in the Royal Thai Army, assigned to the Internal Security Operations Command. He claimed to have helped the United States spy on North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and to have taken part in the CIA-financed “Secret War” against the communists in the Plain of Jars, in Laos. Khattiya also allegedly disguised himself as a Muslim in order to infiltrate rebel groups in Aceh, Indonesia.[citation needed]

Khattiya was married with a daughter. He wrote several best-sellers in the Thai language describing his claimed adventures in a series called Khom…Seh Daeng (คม…เสธ.แดง). He frequently appeared on television talk shows and had a cult of followers, achieving almost celebrity status. He came into conflict with the Thai police commander, General Seri Temiyavet, during the investigation of a large gambling den in 2006. General Seri filed a libel suit against Khattiya, who was arrested and sentenced to prison for four months. Khattiya subsequently brought a 600 million Baht libel suit against Seri for defamation.

Military career: Khattiya made national news on October 18, 2008, when he announced “he would mobilise government supporters against any military attempt to seize political power.” Khattiya said members of the pro-government Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD) would use petrol bombs against any tanks and military vehicles taking part in a coup attempt.

Because of his comments, Khattiya was reassigned as an aerobics teacher by Gen. Anupong Paochinda, the Thai Army commander. An irritated Khattiya responded by saying, “The army chief wants me to be a presenter leading aerobics dancer. I have prepared one dance. It’s called the ‘throwing-a-hand-grenade’ dance.”

On 14 January 2010, Army Commander Anupong Paochinda ordered a suspension of Khattiya Sawasdipol after an inquiry committee found that Khattiya had openly supported the DAAD, a political pressure group that called for new elections, which breached the principle that military officers do not take sides in politics. The following day, Anupong’s office in the Royal Thai Army Headquarters was attacked by grenades fired from a M79 grenade launcher, leaving the office demolished but no one injured. In the news of the attack, Khattiya was described by BBC as a “renegade Thai general who backs anti-government protesters.” A member of the protesters’ radical wing, he accused the red-shirt leaders – many who then distanced themselves from him – of not being hardline enough.

7)

Thai Army Chief Anupong:

There were reports in the local Thai press that Seh Daeng, went to the Middle East to meet Thaksin, and came out of the meeting, that he will be working for the Thaksin side. Thaksin side is mainly a political party close to him and the Red Shirts movement, a mostly pro Thaksin and pro Democracy movement.

Long before that meeting between Thaksin and Seh Daeng, Anupong, Thailand’s army chief, had taken an opposite stand, supporting the anti Democracy, Elite Establishment.

As the Yellow Shirts went destabilizing Thailand, Anupong declined to let the military quell the instability, and thus, the government close to Thaksin, teeter on collapse. As that teetering collapse, was attacked by blow after blow by Thailand’s pro Elite Establishment’s various independent units like the courts and the anti corruption body, Anupong stepped in, and cut a deal for Abhisit of the Democrat Party to govern Thailand.

Inside a military camp, Anupong pressured a Thaksin ally, Nevin, to defect Thaksin and support Abhisit as the prime minister, promising that all corruption charges on Nevin, would be dropped. Nevin agreed to Anupong offer, and Abhisit came to power in Thailand.

But Thaksin and his political party and the Red Shirts were still around. And Thaksin is still highly popular with Thais in the E-Sarn and Northern regions of Thailand. The Red Shirts movements have grown to include millions more, mostly grass-roots.

As all of that was occurring, Seh Daeng was at the height of his popularity, and have reached the status of “Folk Hero” of the Thai military. And Seh Daeng was emerging on the side of democracy, which mostly, supported Thaksin.

Clearly, Seh Daeng and Anupong were on a confrontation path.

In summary, Seh Daeng was going to help Thaksin and the Red Shirts, bring down the Abhisit government, that Anupong put together. Anupong, clearly, must get rid of Seh Daeng.

Also a blog, Political Chits Chat says:

Anupong Retirement Gift from Abhisit

Army Chief Gen Anupong Paojinda is retiring in October so the Democrats wishes to thank the General and the military for killing and wounding many Thai citizens and journalist so that Abhisit can remain Prime Minister………

8)

Elite Establishment’s Propaganda?

The situation between Seh Daeng and the Thai Army Chief, Anupong, was going from bad to worse, with Seh Daeng saying a bomb will be going off in Thailand at this and that place and at this and that time.

And like clock work, the bombing would go off as Seh Daeng says in advance that it would. As relations tanked, Seh Daeng started to make more and more challenges to Anupong. Finally, Anupong demoted Seh Daeng to teach aerobics. here is where many national security analysts says, the situation in Thailand, was heading for “Civil war.”

One national security related blog, part of the Thai Elite Establishment, wrote:

Seh Daeng’s political profile is not new. In late 2008, Seh Daeng was openly supportive of the red-shirt movement after the changes of government following the 2006 military coup.

Following public suggestions by the Army Commander, General Anupong Paojinda, that the then pro-Thaksin prime minister should resign, Seh Daeng called for Gen. Anupong’s resignation. He also reportedly led the training of dismissed paramilitary rangers as a “people’s army” to launch counter-coup operations in defence of the civilian government.

Questions were raised why disciplinary actions were not been taken against a serving military officer. It was not until January 2010, however, that Seh Daeng was suspended for his political “meddling.” The following day, General Anupong’s office was hit in a M79 grenade attack, which Seh Daeng had alluded to own his own website. As a suspended military officer, Seh Daeng held overseas meetings with fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and emerged as a leading red-shirt supporter.

It was not until May 9, 2010 that Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwon officially submitted his request to the Prime Minister recommending the dismissal of Seh Daeng from duty. While the final decision, and the ruling on the removal of military rank, is that of the King, it remains unclear whether the Prime Minister had submitted the recommended actions to the King at the time of his assassination on May 13. It is clear, however, that any decision on Seh Daeng’s dismissal would have been politically controversial and wholly divisive.

In the days prior to Seh Daeng’s assassination, moderate red-shirt leaders had moved closer to agreement with the Thai government proposal for a reconciliation road-map including elections. Hardline red-shirt leaders refused to compromise, including Seh Daeng who stated his intention to assume command of the red-shirts in the event of the withdrawal of civilian leaders. Seh Daeng was assassinated the following day, provoking a violent reaction in which more than 50 people lost their lives over a period of five days.

The targeted assassination effectively decapitated the black-shirted security group in its operations which presented no organized resistance to advancing military columns. The action also opened the resumption of the preferred negotiated settlement with the moderate red-shirt leadership at the last hour. Due to the intransigence of other hard-line red-shirt leaders, however, this did not transpire. Nevertheless, a significantly higher loss of life and more widespread conflict was arguably averted in the elimination of a single renegade military officer entangled in political activities and allegedly political violence.

Seh Daeng was, perhaps, an extreme example but the question arises as to what extent the Thai security forces as institutions, in factions or as individuals, remain active in the broad spectrum of Thailand’s colourful politics, particularly at a time of deep political division and upcoming elections. Indeed, security sector reforms, disciplinary procedures and judicial prosecution, as necessary, would be preferable in eliminating the involvement of the security forces in Thai political life.

9)

Seh Daeng & Red Shirts Leaders

While those that are pro Thai Elite Establishment, such as the above national security analyst, would bunch Seh Daeng and the Red Shirts, into a “Uniform Movement” with “Close Relationship” the fact is there is little that is “Cohesive” between Seh Daeng and the Red Shirts leaders.

There had been a string of incidents of news of problems between Sed Daeng are the Red Shirts leaders.

In one well know incident, at Chula Hospital, Seh Daeng ordered a gate of the hospital, that opened into the Red Shirts protest area closed, because of security concern, that the military will use the access, to attack the Red Shirts protest.

That closure of the gate to Chula Hospital, was greatly reported by the mostly anti Thaksin and pro Elite Establishment, Thai press. That report by the Thai press, was mostly propaganda about how closure of the one access, would hurt the Chula Hospital operation, when the fact is, there are many other access point to the Chula Hospital.

However, the Red Shirts leaders confronted Seh Daeng, for days, demanding that the gate to the Chula Hospital be opened.

Finally, local press reports, one of the Red Shirts leader, walking to the gate of the Chula Hospital that was blocked, with a group of supporters, and “Tore Away” all the materials that were blocking the Chula Hospital gate.

Of that Red Shirts leader action, in tearing down the blocking of the Chula Hospital Gate, Seh Daeng said, quote: “Inside Chula Hospital are already soldiers being stationed and now they can simply walk inside the protest area at will.” That was all that Seh Daeng did, said a few words, of his conflict with the Red Shirts leader situation.

The Red Shirts leaders, in fact, says it a great deal that, quote: “Seh Daeng have co-opted the Red Shirts protest, without official Red Shirts movement sanction of his involvement.”

10)

The Unpredictable Element

During the first week of the Red Shirts protest at Rajprasong, Seh Daeng had fallen out with the Red Shirts leaders. Local press even report Seh Daeng ridiculing the Red Shirts for their lackluster leadership. The Chula Hospital gate problem was only one incident.

The Red Shirts leaders, was monitoring foreign press, and found that She dang involvement, in co-opting, the protest, have given the Red Shirts protest, a violent reputation. In fact, the Abhisit government was calling the Red Shirts protesters, “Terrorist.”

Subsequently, the Red Shirts leaders, began to put more distance between them and Seh Daeng, with some press reporting that the Red Shirts have made request to Seh Daeng to “Tone Down” the “Defense Activities” news, as many news and image coming out of the Red Shirts protest, were about Seh Daeng, and his “Black Shirts.”

Seh Daeng, appeared to agreed somewhat, and made claims to the press, that so called ‘Ronin Warriors’ or independent soldiers for hire, have been fighting during many clashes and also killed soldiers, and at the same time, Seh Daeng denies any involvement.

Seh Daeng also showed evidence, being pictures, to the press, of the so called “Black Shirts” of operating with the Thai military of Anupong.

But relation with the Red Shirts continued to sour. Local press, reports rumors, that Seh Daeng had officially cut ties with the Red Shirts leaders. Local press even reported, that Seh Daeng have called for the Red Shirts hardliners Arisaman Pongruengrong, Suporn Atthawong and Kwanchai Praiphana to take the helm of the movement. Even Thaksin was drawn into the middle of the problems between Seh Daeng and the Red Shirts leaders.

One foreign journalist says however:

Some might question the public split between the red leaders and ‘Seh Daeng’, mirroring a Thai saying “แยกกันเดิน รวมกันตี” (walking different routes, striking together). He is now the unpredictable element of the red movement, since he pretty much has his own agenda to keep the protests going and is not afraid to turn onto his allies. And even if he denies any involvement in any of the violent clashes or any of the few dozens grenade attacks, with his defiant and aggressive stance he remains a controversial figure to say the least. His intentions are clear: to topple the current government and get redemption for his fall from grace two years ago. The fact that Khattiya is still running around the red zone and apparently is still able to command a group of loyal people shows that no one, neither the government, the army or the red leaders themselves would get rid of him easily.

The question is: what makes him untouchable?

11)

Hero:

Imaging yourself, for years, walking into anyone of Thailand’s about 7,000 Seven Eleven store, and there was, not just one, but several books depicting you, as a “Hero” on the shelf for sale? That happened to Seh Daeng, with the images of himself, a “Hero” of epic proportions.

One foreign journalist wrote:

The general has fought on many fronts, but his new enemies are the Thai government and its army. Seh Deaeng and his cohorts are at the heart of a month-long dispute with the government that has erupted into violence on several occasions, killing dozens and injuring almost 1000 people in Bangkok.

Seh Daeng sees parallels between Thailand’s Red Shirts and the pro-democracy protesters in China in 1989. “It’s like Tienanmen in China. The government wants to send the tanks against its own people. In this country, the elite and the army are partial and unfair… Instead of accusing the Red Shirts, the government should investigate its own ranks and its own army to find the real bombers and the killers.”

The self-proclaimed “commander” of the Red Shirts also draws parallels between his goals and those of the French Revolutionaries. “Here, it’s just like Paris two centuries ago, at the Bastille.”

Not everyone shares Seh’s heroic image of himself. Some Thais view him as a terrorist. But he doesn’t seem worried, telling Payen, “There are many snipers here. But I’m not afraid. I don’t care!”

While Seh Daeng had problem with the leadership of the Red Shirts, he was indeed a “Hero” with the grass-roots Thais that made-up the Red Shirts movement.

There were fundamentally two reasons as to why Seh Daeng was able to “Co-opt” the Red Shirts movement. First, again, he went to Thaksin in the Middle East and had an agreement, and secondly, that being a “hero” of the Thais that made up the Red Shirts movement.

For years and years, for example, at nearly every Red Shirts gathering, Seh Daeng would show up, in full military uniform, and mingle with the Thais that went to the gathering. Seh Daeng would give out his signature at such a gathering, and walk among the gathering, talking and greeting the Thais.

There was no denying the fact; Seh Daeng is highly popular with the Red Shirts. And this made the situation very complicated for both Thaksin and the Red Shirts leaders, as Seh Daeng had an almost “Free Hand” to do anything he wants. Seh Daeng appears to report to no one and accountable to no one.

How was Seh Daeng, going to function, as part of the “Official” Red Shirts movement, is a question, no one had the answer. The agreement seemed to be, Seh Daeng was an “Official” leader of the movement, but at the same time “Un-Official” and in-formal. Seh Daeng relation to the Red Shirts appear to be, based mostly, on “A Personal Ad Hoc Level.”

12)

Speechless On Seh Daeng Death

The death of the Red Shirts protest security chief, Seh Daeng left many speechless. What will occur next, seems to be what everyone was asking.

One foreign observer, said:

Where will the protests go after his death? Some speculate that it will get worse as he was such a big figure among the opposition group. Loyal supporters of Seh Daeng even call themselves the “ Black Shirts”, and they say they are willing to do more- to even use violence to get their revenge and get attain their goal. Although some loved Seh Daeng, others thought that he was an extremist- he was very controlling.

During an email conversation I had with a friend in Bangkok, ( a friend which does not want to be named) he wrote, “ Although, I feel sorry for the opposition group, I am not happy with the leaders of the Reds.” He thought that the leaders were “opportunists” ( his own words), only trying to seek their own gain and power.

It is reported that more than 250 people have been wounded or injured. The Thai military has given a deadline of mid-afternoon for protesters to leave their camp site in the middle of Bangkok. The military has especially warned women and children to leave the site. The Red Cross has gone into the camp – allotting food and aid.

13)

Thorn in Abhisit’s Political Life

As of this report, years after Seh Daeng was killed, in March of 2013, the Thai courts have found, that many protesters were killed by the Thai military without the involvement of the infamous “Black Shirt” that allegedly worked for Seh Daeng.

In fact, the court says, many protesters were shot at the head by sniper, with no Black Shirts in the area.

And the court also said that the burning of Bangkok, like Central World, was not an act of terrorism, but of rioting. And some Red Shirts protesters that were arrested for burning Central Worlds and in jail for terrorism, were not involved with the burning.

But on May, 2010, in the aftermath of outbreaks of violence, prime minister Abhisit has specifically named Seh Daeng as “a mastermind against the reconciliation road map” and a “chief terrorist” who “did not want the protests to end“.

According to Abhisit’s Democrat Party and the Yellow Shirts, Seh Daeng is, quote: “One of the most notorious hardliners in the red shirt movement”.

Seh Daeng has a long track record of standing against Abhisit’s interest.

During the 2008 occupy of Government House and shutting down the airport by the yellow shirted PAD, and was supported by Abhisit’s Democrat Party, Seh Daeng was a supporter of the pro-Thaksin governments of Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat.

As the Yellow Shirts ran wild in Bangkok, gunning down their enemies, Seh Daeng, was said to have led his black-claded militia group to counter the PAD guards. Some rumor says, already back then he showed his eccentric side and revealed that one of the tactic to defeat the yellow shirts is to “drop snakes on them from helicopters. “

During the change of power for Thailand to be govern by Abhisit, arranged by the Thai army chief, Anupong, inside a military camp, Seh Daeng was demoted to an aerobics instructor. Abhisit, perhaps concern, about retaliation by Seh Daeng, began questioning what Seh Daeng said and done, in public to journalist, often.

For example, Abhisit would mention that Seh Daeng would talk about bombing taking place here and there in the future. Abhisit also pointed to Seh Daeng unauthorized trip to Cambodia in order to meet Thaksin, also of pictures of Seh Daeng visit to Thaksin in Dubai.

Clearly, Abhisit was trying to link bombing incidents in Bangkok, to Seh Daeng as being responsible, as obviously, how could Seh Daeng known about the bombings in advance. Abhisit, was also trying to link the bombing to Thaksin, as the bombing having been approved by Thaksin for Seh Daeng to carry out.

Indeed, Seh Daeng, perhaps from those meeting with Thaksin and being demoted by Anupong, became greatly involved with the Red Shirts movement, as its security chief.

14)

Shadow Spurs Speculation

It seems that everything about Seh Daeng, is shrouded in mystery. For example, how did he know of all the bombings in Bangkok in advance.

“I deny!” said Seh Daeng. And then with a laugh, when asked about the dozens of bombings that have set Bangkok on edge and about the mysterious black-shirted, “No one ever saw me.”

Seh Daeng involvement with the protest movement underlines fractures in the military, and more broadly in Thai society, after years of political turmoil, where Seh Daeng says, many of the Red Shirts protesters, quote: “Believe that because Seh Daeng is here they won’t die.” And with talk among Red Shirts of stopping the protest and calling for an election from Abhisit, Seh Daeng says: quote: “Just stop? Compromise? All these people, the hard core, they want to stay longer.”

“That’s why everywhere I go people cheer me and ask for my autograph,” said Seh Daeng.

One blogger noted:

On Saturday I blogged about a Maj. General in the Thai army who, press reports indicated, had vowed to wage war against the Thai military. As I continued updating the post over the weekend, the story kept getting stranger.

Today the Bangkok Post has an editorial concerning Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol, alias Seh Daeng. The newspaper believes Seh Daeng may have fired a grenade into the office of the Thai army chief Anupong:

Like a dead elephant which cannot be covered up just by lotus leaves, as an old Thai saying goes, the recent grenade attack on the office of army chief Anupong Paojinda cannot be covered up by the army. The blatant incident took place on the night of Jan 14, but it was a week later before it was made public and confirmed by the army although the prying noses of the press smelled a rat a few days after the attack thanks to the webboard of Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol, alias Seh Daeng, an army specialist, in which he bragged, without elaboration, about a recent grenade attack

Why the cover-up? One assumption is that the blatant incident would be too embarrassing to bear for Gen Anupong if it was known to the public because it could be seen as a big slap to the face. Another possible assumption is that the army chief himself might not have wanted to bother with Seh Daeng, who emerged as the prime suspect since the latter had openly made threats against the general. After all, no one was hurt. And the attack might not be meant to cause bodily harm but to intimidate.

Seh Daeng, many observer of Thailand have said, had become a symbol of the lawlessness and impunity that have torn Thailand apart as the protests have pitted the nation’s poor against its Elite Establishment.

As Seh Daeng commented how working with the protesters was a challenge and about how it was different from his previous military missions. Sed Daeng also described himself as leading a “People’s Army” that was bracing for a crackdown by the military. This clash would be “free form,” said Seh Daeng, adding, “There are no rules.”

So did Seh Daeng been so close to what occurred in Bangkok, in those chaotic days, to even know approximately when bombs were going to, go off. One theory, that says, Seh Daeng is not involved directly, says Seh Daeng is very close to many fractions of power in Thailand, and thus his intelligence is cutting-edge.

15)

Hurt & Reconciliation

In the Abhisit’s crack-down, about 100 protesters were killed, many with sniper bullet to the head, in execution style assassination.

The Thai courts, looking into the cases, said many of the cases of the protesters killed, was conducted by the military, and there were no so called “Black Shirt” in the area.

That shot to the head of protesters, is similar to how Seh Daeng was killed.

As hard as it is to forget the past and move forward, recently, in Thailand there has been talk of “Reconciliation.”

Seh Daeng daughter, Kattiya said her father did not die during the dispersal of protesters but as a result of premeditated murder. Whoever committed the offence must face legal action. Kittiya agreed, however, with the latest suggestion between the Red Shirts and the Yellow Shirts to issue two amnesty bills – one of which would pardon protesters who broke the security laws – because she believed they had joined political rallies with good intent.

Democrat Party, party list MP Trairong Suwankhiri admitted he had discussed the amnesty bills with Deputy House Speaker Charoen Chankomol, and he had already reported to Democrat Party leader Abhisit, and Democrat Party adviser Banyat Bantadthan about the talks.

Trairong said he and Charoen broached two issues: first, to pardon those who committed security law breaches, which he believed every party agreed with; and second, to set up a committee to decide which particular individuals should be pardoned. He said it was now up to the party to decide on the matter.

16)

Seh Daeng’s Legacy

Seh Daeng, once became involved with the Red Shirts movement, went to most of the movement’s gathering. And at all of them, Seh Daeng would say good bye, to people who asked him for his autograph, by giving them a military salute.

The Red Shirts, being a movement of the grass-roots poor Thais, most of them, have never been saluted by a ranking Thai military general. There was a great deal of talk with the Red Shirts, about that “Salute” by Seh Daeng, a being very significant and symbolic.

The symbol and significant of the “Salute” is that it was a sign of the future, of a Thai military, that belongs to “The People.” In fact, Seh Daeng got the grass-roots in the Red Shirts movement, to start writing, talking and discussing, “The People’s Army.”

In Thailand’s history, there were few soldiers of Seh Daeng’s caliber. His military exploits, before entering politics, and books about them made him a “Military Super-Hero.” And his involvement in politics, on the side of the grass-roots, made him a “Folk Hero.”

His activities, even resulted in what the pro Elite Establishment Bangkok Post called, potential for a coup.

The Red Shirts movement that Seh Daeng tried to protect, with the crack-down that came after the Seh Daeng was taken out of the picture with the assassination, suffered about 100 death. Many of the Red Shirts were killed with sniper shot to the head. Many of those that survived were called “Terrorist” and thrown in jail.

The situation looked grim for Thailand’s pro Democracy movement. Then an election took place, and the Red Shirts won.

Today, even Seh Daeng daughter, is a minister of the people, who sits inside the parliament, as part of the government.

]]>https://assassinationthaksin.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/137/feed/0THA: Political Turmoil in Continues in Thailandthaiintelligentnews